Preamble

[The House—after the Adjournment on 20th December, 1957, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the Right Honourable Walter Elliot, C.H., MC., Member for Kelvingrove, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the Right Honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Smoke Control Areas

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many smokeless zones have been established since the passing of the Clean Air Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): None, Sir, but three local authorities have submitted to my right hon. Friend their preliminary proposals for the establishment of four smoke control areas under the Clean Air Act and he has approved these proposals in principle. Five other local authorities have notified their intention of setting up such areas.

Mr. Hannan: As this is most unsatisfactory, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he has taken to encourage the public, industry and local authorities to set up these smokeless zones because of the relationship between smoke and the increase in the incidence of cancer?

Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend sent out last year a memorandum on procedure to all local authorities. As the hon. Member will realise, surveys are now

being carried out in a very large number of areas and these surveys are bound to take time.

Smokeless Fuel (Supplies)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are being made for adequate supplies of solid smokeless fuel consequent on the establishment of smokeless zones.

Mr. J. N. Browne: As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General told the House on 11th March last, supplies of solid smokeless fuels are sufficient to meet not only present demands but likely demands in the immediate future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that any proposals for smoke control areas put forward by Scottish local authorities will have to be turned down for lack of solid smokeless fuel.

Mr. Hannan: Will the Minister bear in mind that under the Regulations it is now an offence to allow smoke to be emitted in these zones, and will he take all possible steps to ensure that these supplies will be adequate, so that people may not be able to use that as a defence when they are charged under the Act?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir.

Proposed Technical Colleges, Ayrshire

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the promised provision of two technical colleges in Ayrshire.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Since my right hon. Friend's Answer to the hon. Member's Question of 30th July last discussions have continued between the authority and my Department on various points relating to the proposed colleges at Ayr and Kilmarnock, and a public inquiry has been held regarding the compulsory acquisition of the selected site for the Kilmarnock College. My right hon. Friend is awaiting the report of the Commissioner whom he appointed to hold this inquiry.

Mr. Ross: May we have more detailed information in relation to the date of starting Ayr College, and will the hon. Gentleman express an opinion with regard to the obstruction being met with as a


result of the attitude of Lord Howard de Walden in respect of Kilmarnock College?

Mr. Macpherson: Discussions are going on about the accommodation of Kilmarnock College. So far as the accommodation in Ayr College is concerned, agreements have been reached and proposals will shortly be going before the appropriate committee of the education authority.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it a fact that Lord Howard de Walden has been holding up a very necessary scheme for technical education and would the hon. Gentleman say what would happen to Lord Howard de Walden if he were in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Macpherson: The last part of the supplementary question appears to be hypothetical. With regard to the first part, I do not think that it arises, because discussions on the accommodation to be provided are still going on.

Secondary Education

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a committee to inquire into the present state and organisation of Scottish secondary education and to make recommendations.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As the hon. Member will recall, my right hon. Friend reconstituted the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland early last year, and he will refer to it any questions affecting secondary education which from time to time appear to him to require examination by such a body.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is more than a feeling that the whole question of the state, organisation and future development of Scottish secondary education is much in need of reconsideration and will he look at this from a much wider aspect than problems that arise from time to time?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will certainly look at it from time to time, but he is not convinced at the present time of the need for a thoroughgoing inquiry into secondary education.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern that the best use is not being made in some areas of students in the 14–15 range, and that the relationship of the 14–15 range to the general body of secondary education is

not quite clear even to the teaching profession? Has not there been enough experience of the working of this extended leaving-age to enable the matter to be thoroughly investigated as a whole?

Mr. Macpherson: Our view is that it is still premature. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a paper on junior secondary education was published a little more than two years ago, and that is being discussed and acted upon by teachers and followed up carefully by inspectors of education.

Linlithgow Bridge

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the building of Linlithgow bridge.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Tenders are due to be submitted by 24th January.

Glasgow-Stirling Road

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the Glasgow-Stirling road.

Mr. N. Macpherson: A section of this road in Lanarkshire has been reconstructed and work is in progress on another section. The reconstruction of a section in Dunbartonshire is about to start, and schemes for the remainder of the road are in preparation.

House-building, Leith

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has approved for house-building in Leith; and if he can now state when building will commence on the site at Leith Fort.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Proposals have been approved and work is in progress for the erection of 45 houses at Pilrig Street, 48 at Annfield, and 27 at Laverockbank. It is hoped that a decision on the winning design for Leith Fort will be announced this month. Thereafter drawings and specifications will be prepared and tenders invited. The Corporation cannot yet forecast exactly when building will begin, but I am assured that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the appalling housing conditions in certain parts of


Leith and the continual decline in the numbers of people living there, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter of great urgency? Will he give an assurance that he will push on with re-housing and slum clearance in this area?

Mr. Browne: Yes. Sir. We will do everything we can to push on, but I think the hon. Member will agree that Leith Fort is a very important site and that it should be carefully planned.

Farm Inspections, Roxburgh

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 20 farms in Roxburgh which received notices of inspection in November, 1955, were in fact inspected: and with what result.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): Notices of inspection were received by 21 farmers, mentioned in the hon. Member's Question of 17th December, over the period June, 1951, to June, 1957, but none of these notices was received in November, 1955. All these farms were subsequently inspected and in six cases warning notices were issued.

Mr. Hoy: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that that Answer differs somewhat from the previous Answer that I had from the Secretary of State when he said that 20 notices were issued at one particular meeting? In view of the Answer, which still remains unsatisfactory, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Light Castings Industry, Falkirk

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the present state of employment in the light castings industry in the Falkirk area, what steps he intends to take to meet the situation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service about the employment problems arising in the light castings industry: and also with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who will bear in mind the needs of the area for suitable new industries.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that every year in this industry there has been a depression, beginning about this time and continuing until the late summer, when men regularly work short time? In spite of discussions between different Departments, nothing seems to have been done from the Government end.

Mr. Macpherson: Industry within the area as a whole has been adapting itself with very great success. In fact, some two dozen developments have taken place in this area since the war.

Fisheries (Protection)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the activities during this winter's months at sea off the coast of Scotland of his fisheries cruisers with particular reference to the number and nature of the incidents in which they have been involved in protecting the Scottish fishing industry and also indicating the health of the officers and crews so serving.

Lord John Hope: Eight fishery cruisers have been on normal patrol this winter. During November and December seven cases of suspected illegal fishing were detected; three distress calls from fishing boats were answered; and on 25 occasions the presence of foreign fishing vessels in areas prescribed by the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, were reported. The health of the officers and crews has been generally good.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he thinks that there are enough of these fishery protection vessels for the vast areas of sea which have to be covered? Is he aware that in the winter season the officers and crews of these vessels have to put up with very arduous times and great difficulties, and will he investigate their conditions of employment with a view to determining whether the number of such protection vessels should or should not be increased?

Lord John Hope: I think that the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question raises a different point, but if he will put down a Question I will certainly do my best to answer it. On the general question, it seems to me that the results so far show that the matter is well in hand.

Direct-Grant Schools (Fees)

Mr. A. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what respects the conditions differ in Scotland from those in England regarding the reservation of places for non-fee-paying pupils imposed on schools receiving direct grants; and whether he will make it a condition of direct grant in Scotland that a proportion of non-paying pupils be admitted.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education informs me that one of the conditions on which direct grant is paid to grammar schools in England is that at least 25 per cent. of the admissions must be free of tuition fee, and that further places up to 50 per cent. in all must be put at the disposal of local education authorities if they so require. No such condition applies in Scotland. The Education (Scotland) Miscellaneous Grants Regulations, 1948, will have to be reviewed later this year, and I shall then consider whether such a condition should be introduced.

Mr. Woodburn: When the Minister is examining this problem, will he also find out whether or not the Scottish students at these schools are prejudiced compared with students at similar schools in England in connection with examinations for the Army and other Services, because of the different dates and different types of qualification? Is not he aware, for instance, that it is possible for students in some of these schools to go to Cambridge University and other universities in England but not to Scottish universities? It seems to me that the Scottish boy is being penalised.

Mr. Macpherson: That seems rather a different question, but my right hon. Friend will certainly bear it in mind.

Canadian Trade Mission

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what results he anticipates for Scottish industry from the recent visit of Canadian industrialists.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has reason to hope that the contacts made by the Canadian mission will result in substantial increases in exports from Scotland as from other parts of the United Kingdom. The

mission's purpose, however, was not to place orders; it was a fact-finding mission whose objects were to obtain a firsthand knowledge of the achievements of British industry and to make recommendations with a view to expanding trade between Canada and this country. May I add that the mission was exceedingly welcome in Scotland and that I believe its members formed a favourable impression of Scottish industry.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that its members did form such an impression seems to me to be a point which he should bear in mind? Will he make sure that there is some follow-through and that some attention is paid to the business about which there has been so much complaint for years, namely, our selling organisation and selling methods in Canada? Will he try to make sure that our industry cashes in on a favourable impression?

Mr. Macpherson: I will convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

National Health Service (Administrative and Clerical Workers)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any further statement to make on the proposed pay increase for clerical staff within the National Health Service.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The Staff Side of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council lodged a claim on 3rd January for a 5 per cent. increase to staffs on salaries up to £1,200 per annum. The Council has agreed to defer the consideration of the claim until 12th February.

Forth Road Bridge

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the increasing unemployment problem in the country, he will take measures to expedite the beginning of the Forth Road Bridge construction.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board invited tenders for foundations to the central piers of this bridge and for the cable anchorages in December and it is hoped that work will start as soon as possible after the tenders have been received.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister indicate whether there is any possibility at all of speeding up the preliminary work, because the unemployment position is becoming increasingly serious? Is he aware that in the last six months, for instance, four factories in Fife alone have closed down and that unemployment figures in the Cowdenbeath-Lochgelly area are the highest for ten years? Will he do something, if not with the bridge, then by other means, to attract industry to the area?

Mr. Macpherson: I am not certain that there is much scope for accelerating the process that has already been set on foot, but I should say that the hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the possibilities of employment arising out of the construction of the Forth Bridge. I am informed that not more than 40 local unskilled men are likely to find work in the construction of the bridge during the first two years of its construction.

Mental Defectives (Accommodation)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional accommodation was made available for mental defectives in the Scottish South-Eastern Region in 1957; and what additional accommodation it is expected to make available in 1958.

Mr. J. N. Browne: In 1957 the total number of places for mental defectives in the region was increased by 36. This year my right hon. Friend expects a start will be made on a new unit of 62 beds at Gogarburn but it will not be available for occupation this year.

Mr. Willis: Does not the hon. Member agree that that progress is far too slow and that at this rate it will take about eight to ten years to provide the accommodation required? Can he speed up this matter?

Mr. Browne: I join with the hon. Member in his concern, but I can assure him that the regional board is doing all it can with its available resources.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects that institutional accommodation will be provided for the mental defectives at present resident in Westfield Park Home, Dalkeith.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend is informed that the mental defectives at Westfield are on the hospital waiting list and will be admitted according to the respective urgency of their cases. My right hon. Friend is afraid it is impossible to forecast dates for admissions.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Member aware that some of these cases have been on the waiting list for ten years? Is it not time, in the interests of Westfield Park Home itself, that these people were provided with accommodation elsewhere? Is not the present position scandalous?

Mr. Browne: I am aware that what the hon. Member says is correct. He is aware of the overall shortage of mental deficiency accommodation. I can assure him that priority of admission is decided by an assessment panel on which the local authority is represented.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for estimates to be made of the cost of bringing into operation of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The current Exchequer grant for legal aid in civil proceedings alone in Scotland is £155,000. We have not enough information on which to base a reliable estimate of the cost of the other services covered by the Act, but as regards legal aid in criminal cases, a Committee is now reviewing the relative provisions.

Mr. Willis: As this information is apparently to be made available in England and Wales, why cannot it be made available in Scotland?

Mr. Macpherson: I have no information about the position in England and Wales, but our feeling is that in Scotland any such estimate regarding legal aid would be of the nature of an intelligent guess.

Roads, North Uist

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the work of completing the linking of the Lochportain road to the main county road in North Uist is to begin.

Lord John Hope: Substantial expenditure is already being incurred in providing roads between the townships concerned and work on these will continue for about another year. My right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider the further work referred to by the hon. Member if and when the county council accord it the necessary priority.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the hon. Member aware that some tens of thousands of pounds were spent by the Labour Government on the main scheme to link these townships with the main county road to North Uist? Is it not a piece of imbecile extravagance to leave a road nine-tenths finished and petering out into a bog, when a little more expenditure now would finish the job and connect the right hon. Member's own tenants with the rest of the area? When is the right hon. Member going to develop his sense of stewardship to his own tenants who have been stuck on a bleak peninsula without a road for nearly 30 years?

Lord John Hope: When the hon. Member studies my reply, he will see that the Secretary of State's sense of stewardship is unimpaired.

Hydro-Electric Board Project, Strathfarrar-Kilmorach

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the objections lodged by Lord Lovat to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's project at Strathfarrar-Kilmorach; and on what conditions the objections were withdrawn.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No objections were lodged by Lord Lovat.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: is the hon. Member aware that I am informed by the Hydro-Electric Board that an objection was lodged by Lord Lovat and withdrawn very early in the course of the hearings? Is he aware that it might be a very good thing if a full public statement were made to confirm or scotch

rumours that Lord Lovat was virtually bought off by a quite extravagant claim for compensation which was awarded by the Board? On the basis of that information given to me by the Hydro-Electric Board, will the Under-Secretary take steps to see that it is confirmed or denied and the public and the investors of the Board made aware whether there is some truth in the statement? The sum of £200,000 has been mentioned and this is marginal land [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to elicit information which might not be welcome to some hon. Members, landlords, on the other side of the House.

Mr. Macpherson: Naturally my right hon. Friend will look into assertions that the hon. Member has made and I should be grateful to him if he would send such support as he can muster for the assertions.

House Purchase

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that increasing numbers of people are being induced to buy houses which are likely to be condemned in the near future under schemes subject to his approval; and if he will therefore initiate a publicity campaign to make prospective buyers aware of the legal position.

Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend has no evidence that the purchase of houses likely to be condemned has increased. His Department asks local authorities to publicise slum clearance proposals approved under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954. Local authorities also give advice to intending purchasers who are in doubt about particular houses.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Member undertake to look into a case in Prinlaws in Fife if I send him the information? Is he aware that certain people there are being induced to buy houses which will probably be condemned next year by the Fife County Council? In those circumstances, will he make clear what compensation those people can or cannot get, if that is the case?

Mr. Browne: If the hon. Member will send me particulars, I shall be glad to look into them.

Education (General Grants)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from educational bodies respecting the future of education, within the system of block grants; and what steps he proposes taking to ensure adequate expansion of education within the block grant system.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has received thirty representations from educational bodies expressing concern at the future of education under the system of general grants. The need for developing the education service is recognised in the proposed legislation, and the provision for development will ensure adequate expansion of education under the new grant system, having regard to general economic conditions.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Member aware that since recent events in the Government there has been increasing concern in Scotland that the Treasury attitude in future may be such that Scottish education may be cut, let alone expanded? Will he do all he can to see that education is put back into the special grant class so that we may be sure that Scottish education will be maintained and expanded in the future?

Mr. Macpherson: I am sure that the hon. Member does not expect me to say anything which would give the impression that the Government are not determined that the present Bill will run its full course.

Public Works Loan Board (Local Authority Applications)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities, having found it impossible to finance housing and other development on current market terms, have applied to him for Public Works Loan Board facilities; and how many he has rejected.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I have been asked to reply.
Between 26th October, 1955, and 31st December, 1957, 572 separate applications were made to the Public Works Loan Board by Scottish local authorities; of these seven were rejected, 25 were approved in part and the rest were approved in full.

Mr. Bence: The figures appear to be reasonably satisfactory, but is the Financial Secretary aware that many of those authorities which were refused are authorities which are most in need? Will he please look into this matter to sec that every local authority in Scotland with terrific problems on its hands is encouraged to go to the Public Works Loan Board instead of putting advertisements in newspapers in Scotland asking for money at 6 and 7 per cent.?

Mr. Simon: It is for the Board to decide what it is prepared to lend in the light of the present policy, but, of course, there is nothing to prevent any local authority, which has the approval of the central Government Department and which satisfies the statutory requirements, from applying to the Board.

Mr. Ross: Is the Financial Secretary aware that we are very grateful for having the clearest answer we have had from an Under-Secretary for a long time?

Scientific and Technological Education

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes taking to increase scientific and technological education in Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Of the £10 million programme authorised for building for technical education my right hon. Friend has already approved projects to the value of £7,300,000. He is at present considering further projects to the value of £1,200,000 and hopes soon to receive others covering the remaining £1,500,000. He is taking every opportunity by means of conferences and other forms of publicity to encourage employers and young workers to make full use of the facilities avaliable.

Educational Certificates (Equivalence)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure equivalence of Scottish educational certificates with those of England and Wales.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Since the differences between Scottish and English educational certificates reflect the differences between the two educational systems, it would be undesirable to make the Scottish


pattern conform exactly with the English. Every effort is made, however, to ensure that in relation to entrance requirements the proper value is assigned to passes in the Scottish certificate.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Member aware that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) mentioned earlier today, there is a widespread feeling in Scotland that Scottish children are being treated unfairly over these examinations; that arrangements for settling examination standards for external examinations for professional bodies and the Armed Forces are made in relation to England, and that Scotland is made to fit in piecemeal? Will he do something more about this?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Member will realise that it is entirely within the discretion of the individual professional and other organisations to fix the entrance qualifications which they regard as necessary, but I can assure him that the Department of Education in Scotland takes a great deal of trouble to make certain that proper weight is attached to the Scottish certificates.

River Purification

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many river purification authorities are now operating in Scotland; and how many have still to be established.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Of the ten river purification boards suggested in the Broun Lindsay Report for the area south of the Caledonian Canal, eight are functioning, one is in the process of being set up and one has not yet been established.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say which board is in process of being established and which one has not been established? Has he formed any idea how long it will be before this Act, passed in 1951 with a sense of urgency to deal with a very serious abuse, will be in complete operation?

Mr. Browne: The board for the River Tay is in process of being completed, and the board for North and South Esk has not yet been established, as we have not yet come to a decision regarding this small area. As to the question of when the Act will be fully operative, I would

say that it has not been easy to meet all the local difficulties in forming different boards. I think that the establishment of nine out of ten is good progress.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reports he has received from the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee from its inception to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. J. N. Browne: No formal reports have been received. The Committee has drawn attention to certain administrative matters.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Joint Under-Secretary say how often the Advisory Committee has met, and can he tell us exactly what it is doing?

Mr. Browne: The Committee has met three times since its appointment in November, 1956. I am advised that it has asked the river purification boards to survey their areas and to provide detailed information upon which the Committee can base its recommendations on the control of polluting discharge by the imposition of standards and on methods of treating industrial effluent.

English Football Clubs (Ground Staffs)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the increasing pressure on Scottish boys who have not yet attained the school leaving age of fifteen years to join the ground staffs of English football clubs; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this practice in view of the disturbing effect it has on the education of schoolboys in general.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has no information about approaches of this kind, but if, as he assumes, they take place outside school hours, he has no power to intervene.

Mr. Rankin: Did not the Joint Under-Secretary seek to get into touch with any of the authorities concerned? Evidently the English Football League recognises the problem raised in this Question. It has proposed the following rule to its members:
…clubs shall not enter into any negotiations for registration, directly"—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Rankin: I am merely giving the answer that the Joint Under-Secretary might have given.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the function of the hon. Member to give an answer. He ought to ask a supplementary question, and ask it as briefly as he can.

Mr. Rankin: I was not intending to assume other duties; I was merely quoting a rule which is now proposed and which covers the point raised in my Question. The rule proposed by the English Football League to their members is as follows:
…clubs shall not enter into any negotiations for registration, directly or indirectly, with an amateur player on the roll of a recognised school until the day following the end of the holidays on the term in which he leaves, or on the day he takes up full employment.
In view of that decision of the English Football League, I am content to leave the matter as it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

British Standards Institution

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to encourage the maximum success of the British Standards Institution's publication, "Shopper's Guide," which gives advice to shoppers on the merits and failings of consumer goods.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the possible enlargement of the grant made to the British Standards Institution; and whether any additional sum is now given for the work of its Consumer Advisory Council and the publication of "Shopper's Guide."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The general grant to the British Standards Institution will in the 1958–59 financial year probably amount to £150,000, an increase of £10,000 on the current financial year's general grant. In addition to this general grant, the Board of Trade has in the current financial year given the British Standards Institution £10,000 specifically for the extension of its work on consumer protection: this now includes "Shopper's Guide." It is for the Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of this publication.

I cannot make any statement about renewal of the additional grant.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is not he aware that in one way and another the consumer is getting a very bad deal in this country? Does the Minister think that we will get a reduction short of having a Minister of Consumers' Welfare?

Machine Tools

Mr. Bowles: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the amount of sterling spent abroad by firms in this country on the purchase of machine tools.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): United Kingdom imports of machine tools—excluding portable power tools—were valued at £21,800,000 in 1957. A separate figure for the amount of sterling paid in respect of these imports is not available.

Mr. Bowles: Is not that Answer rather unsatisfactory from the point of view of British industry, in that so many of these machine tools have to be bought from abroad when, to my knowledge, there are industries in this country, particularly in the Midlands, which are able to supply them?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The hon. Member's Question related to payment in sterling. I would point out that, like other major countries, we are still very large net exporters of machine tools.

Fertilisers (Monopolies Commission's Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the Report of the Monopolies Commission on fertilisers.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend does not expect to receive it before next year.

Mr. Willey: Cannot the Minister do something about this? Surely he is aware that a recent authoritative report upon this industry showed that the reduction in production costs has had no reflection at all in prices? This means that there must of necessity be a very high level of Government subsidy.

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that it would be right to interfere with the work of the Commission.

Mr. Wade: Since the Monopolies Commission was reconstituted under the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, has the President received any reports from the Commission? Is the Minister satisfied that its present reduced size is apt?

Mr. Erroll: I think that that is another question, which I will do my best to answer if it is put on the Order Paper.

Resale Prices

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a large and increasing number of manufacturers and distributors are able and willing to reduce prices but are prevented from doing so by the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance; and what action he will take to remedy this situation.

Mr. Erroll: The Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, makes the collective enforcement of resale price conditions unlawful. If the hon. Member has any evidence of unlawful action I should be glad to examine it.

Mr. Cronin: Is not the hon. Member aware that during the last few months there have been heavy falls in the cost of raw materials, and no corresponding decrease whatsoever in prices in the trades concerned?

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of that point, but there have been increases in other costs—notably labour costs—which have overtaken some of the reductions in the prices of raw materials.

Trade with Eastern Germany

Mr. Mikardo: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking, or proposing to take, to assist British manufacturers who wish to initiate or increase exports of their products to Eastern Germany.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Exporters enjoy the same facilities for trade with Eastern Germany as for trade with other countries in the Soviet bloc, within the limits set by the fact that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the present East German authorities as a Government.

Mr. Mikardo: Is not the hon. Member aware that the other N.A.T.O. countries, which equally do not recognise the East

German Government, nevertheless have facilitated the creation of unofficial trade agreements and clearance arrangements under which, for example, France, Belgium, Holland, Turkey and West Germany do £150 million worth of trade a year? Why are our manufacturers disadvantaged in competition with these other countries which have the same political attitudes?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Under the circumstances that I have outlined the initiative for a trade agreement from our side must rest with the representative trade organisations, as with trade organisations in the countries that the hon. Member has cited. I understand that certain of these trade organisations are at present in touch with each other, with a view to making these arrangements.

Mr. Mikardo: Is it not a fact that negotiations to this end, which were undertaken by the Federation of British Industries, have been broken off because of active discouragement by the hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, that is not true.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order. In order to elicit further information about this matter, and because of the half-hearted nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise it on the Adjournment.

Jewellery Designs (Protection)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the new method of centrifugal casting has facilitated the copying of jewellery designs; and whether he will consider improving the present methods of protecting such designs.

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of this method. The protection provided for jewellery designs by our existing laws is, in our view, adequate, but we will certainly examine any suggestions that the hon. Member may make for improvements in the procedure of registration.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate the Minister's willingness to examine this matter. Will he examine the system which is in operation in Germany? That country seems to have found a much cheaper way of protecting manufacturers. In Birmingham manufacturers are spending £3,000 a year


and more in designing, only to feel a sense of complete frustration later because of the copying of those designs which is taking place in this country. The present method is far too expensive and elaborate in detail to expect manufacturers to co-operate. I hope that the Minister will look into the question.

Mr. Erroll: I shall certainly look into the matter, but under present arrangements a certificate of registration can usually be issued within a month of application.

Jute Control

Mr. Page: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) by how much the receipts of the Jute Control have exceeded its expenditure since the control was established;
(2) by how much the receipts of the Jute Control have exceeded its expenditure since 17th July, 1957, to a recent convenient date; and how that figure compares with that for a similar period of 1956–57.

Mr. Erroll: In the period from 1939, when the Jute Control was established, to 31st December, 1957, the Control's net surplus on trading operations, calculated on a commercial basis, amounted to about £2,780,000. Figures for the period from 17th July, 1957, are not available, but in the period from 1st July, 1957, to 31st December, 1957, the surplus was about £731,600 compared with £1,469,700 in the corresponding period of 1956.

Mr. Page: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has considered a further reduction in the mark-up price of imported hessian and the use of this profit of the Jute Control to support the Dundee manufacturers if any further reduction in the mark-up price should cause them hardship?

Mr. Erroll: I will pass on the suggestion of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: When considering this question, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the operations of the Jute Control over these years have been the means of preventing mass unemployment in the City of Dundee?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, I appreciate that.

Trade Missions

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the success of the recent Canadian Trade Mission, he will be willing to make similar arrangements for businessmen from the other Dominions who visit the United Kingdom.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, Sir. We are always ready to make official arrangements for business visitors who come here under the sponsorship of their Government.

Mr. Collins: Does that Answer mean that the Department will initiate arrangements for such visits and that similar visits by businessmen of other Dominions will be given the same management and the same V.I.P. treatment?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There is a slight difference because in this case the visit was initiated by the Canadian Government themselves as a step towards implementing their declared aim of diverting trade towards the United Kingdom. We shall, of course, give the warmest welcome to any other missions with a similar objective.

Isle of Wight

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will schedule the Isle of Wight as a Development Area under the Distribution of Industry Acts.

Mr. Erroll: It is too soon to judge what the longer-term effect of the decision to discontinue development of the aircraft S.R. 177 will have on the level of unemployment in the island.

Mr. Jay: As unemployment is already near 5 per cent. in the island, and as the population is largely dependent for factory employment on one firm, is not this just the sort of case for which this Act was intended?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. Scheduling could not alleviate the immediate problem. We prefer to rely on the efforts we are making to interest expanding firms in new projects in the island.

Motor Tyres (Prices)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that manufacturers of motor tyres are using the Restrictive Practices Act, 1956, to hold up the retail price of tyres; and what


action he proposes to take to follow up in this industry the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal to manufacturers to lower prices.

Mr. Erroll: I am informed that tyre manufacturers are availing themselves of Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. My right hon. Friend has no powers of control over the prices of tyres, but he would, of course, welcome any practicable reduction in prices.

Mr. Jay: As the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he finally got fed up with the Government, urged manufacturers to reduce their prices and as the tyre manufacturers are using the Act in order to hold prices up, do the Government think this satisfactory?

Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Member should remember that competition between manufacturers can play an important part in keeping prices down.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister consult the Attorney-General as to whether the manufacturers in this industry are acting illegally under Section 24 of the Act, which is supposed to prohibit collective resale price maintenance?

Mr. Erroll: I have no information that they are acting illegally.

Mr. Usborne: Is it not a fact that the main tyre manufacturers are now at last wholly delighted with this Act because it has enabled them to maintain their prices much more easily than they could in the past?

Mr. Erroll: The Act makes specific provision for individual enforcement of resale price maintenance, and was passed by Parliament.

Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his recent tour of Canada, the United States of America and Mexico.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, Sir. The main purpose of my right hon. Friend's tour was to examine the possibilities for expanding our trade in the important dollar markets of Mexico and Venezuela. He took the opportunity of travelling first to Vancouver, where he found every intention of following up the recommendations made by the Canadian Trade Mission which visited this country last

month. In San Francisco my right hon. Friend inaugurated a British-American Chamber of Commerce, whose purpose is to promote the sales of British goods in California.
In Mexico he had discussions with Ministers and leaders of industry and found that on both sides there are opportunities for increasing trade. Events in Venezuela unfortunately caused his visit to that country to be put off.

Mr. Cronin: While I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade did some useful work in the countries he visited, was his absence from office really justifiable when there was a serious Cabinet crisis, bearing in mind that, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is the Cabinet Minister most concerned with economic matters?

CONTROLLED THERMO-NUCLEAR REACTIONS (EXPERIMENTS)

Mr. D. Price: asked the Prime Minister what recent thermo-nuclear experiments have been carried out on the Zeta reactor at Harwell; to what exent the successful fusion of heavy hydrogen atoms has led to the generation of neutrons; and if he will now make a further statement.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to make a statement on the recent thermo-nuclear experiments which have been conducted on the Zeta reactor at Harwell; what proposals have been made and adopted by the joint United States/United Kingdom declassification committee; and if he will now disclose more details about the work going on in the United States of America and the United Kingdom towards harnessing the power of the hydrogen bomb for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of research into the harnessing of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Hale: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to British progress in research in the field of production of thermo-nuclear energy.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
On 11th November, 1957, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General informed the House of the general position regarding research on controlled thermonuclear reactions. The United Kingdom and the United States have brought into effect a further measure of declassification, and it is now possible to publish technical details about the experiments which have been taking place in the two countries as part of the full collaboration between them on all research work in this field. I understand from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority that arrangements have been made for this technical information to be released at 6 p.m. on Friday, 24th January.

Mr. Price: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him to examine the machinery for releasing this information, as I hope he is aware that over the last three months this information has been leaking to the British Press in a rather backstairs manner which suggests that the authorities are trying to hush up a failure, whereas in fact this is one of the greatest triumphs of British science comparable with those of Lord Rutherford, J. J. Thomson and Sir John Cockcroft? Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the authorities how they can ensure either that there are no leaks in anticipation of statements or that there are earlier statements of such successes?

Mr. Butler: Taking first the last point in the supplementary question, following upon declassification the earliest possible arrangements were made for a joint statement, one to be made here and one in the United States of America. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that naturally leaks are undesirable, particularly as I agree with my hon. Friend that this achievement ranks very high in the history of British science. Proper arrangements have been made, including a Press conference at Harwell, for informing the Press generally of the progress of this research.

Mr. Mason: Why should we receive news of this great experiment from garbled driblets in the Press and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, finally in a scientific magazine, Nature? Is not this experiment of such significance to this House and to the nation that the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to make a statement, and a proud statement, now?

Mr. Butler: I do not agree. I think it much better that this highly scientific information should be published, as was done on a previous occasion, in a scientific journal. We may then be quite satisfied as to its accuracy and as to those who understand it publishing it. I think that is the better way.

Mr. Grimond: Is not this the most laudable answer that the Western world can make to Russian advances in this science and would not we be well advised to put our efforts into this type of nuclear development instead of duplicating American effort in nuclear bombs?

Mr. Butler: That question cannot be taken as literally correct. I would not accept the latter part of the supplementary question in toto. The more we make advances in this sphere the better it will be for the civilised world and for our own civilisation.

Mr. Mason: On a point of order. In view of the very important nature of this question and as I think this statement should be made in this House and not in scientific journals, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORKERS)

Mr. Mellish: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with Staff Side Whitley Council (Hospital Staffs) held on Monday, 23rd December, 1957.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached at his meeting with representatives of the National and Local Government Officers Association on the veto imposed by Her Majesty's Government on the Whitley Council award of 3 per cent. increase for clerical and administrative workers in the National Health Service.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
Having heard the considerations put forward by the deputation from the Staff Side of the General Council of the Whitley Councils for the Health Services (Great Britain), on which the National and Local Government Officers Association was represented, my right hon.


Friend explained that the decision announced by the Health Ministers in relation to the pay of the administrative and clerical staff had been taken in the light of the need to maintain the position and purchasing power of the pound, and that the 3 per cent. increase could not be granted at the present time. My right hon. Friend agreed that the Whitley machinery in the Health Services needed to be reviewed and said that in this context the points made by the deputation would be borne closely in mind.

Mr. Mellish: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply—he will understand that most of us on this side of the House think that his conclusions are absolute nonsense—may I ask him if, in order to try to solve this very unhappy position, he will consult the Minister of Health to get an implementation of the award, which is the only way this staff can be satisfied that it is being properly dealt with?

Mr. Butler: In regard to the award and in particular to any new grading and pay structure designed to improve prospects and recruitment, the refusal to grant the 3 per cent. does not automatically rule out approval of what I have just described.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision is having a serious effect on confidence in the negotiating machinery of the country? Will he particularly consider the position of the staff in the National Health Service and the possibilities of recruiting for the service if the present decision is maintained?

Mr. Butler: The present decision will be maintained as long as the situation continues in the economy at the present time. It has been deliberately promulgated because of the present situation. I would not agree that it has had an entirely bad effect on the general character of our economic problems. I do agree that it is very hard on this particular section that the incidence should have fallen on them.

Mr. Bevan: When the National Health Service was established and the Whitley machinery itself formed part of it, it was obvious that final responsibility must rest with the House of Commons because these were very large sums of money.

Is it not a fact that it was then hoped that the Whitley machinery would stand as a shield between the House of Commons and the workers involved? Would it not be wholly undesirable that large bodies of workers should be brought into conflict with the House of Commons and that wage rates should be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons? If the Government persist in their attitude, would it not be necessary for us to have debates on wage rates in the House of Commons and to compare conditions with other conditions enjoyed by other members of the community; in which case, could it not easily happen that large bodies of workers in the country would come into conflict with the House of Commons and strike against the House of Commons?

Mr. Butler: One has to strike a balance between the sovereign power of the House of Commons and Parliament, the desire of hon. Members to discuss matters of vital importance here, and the importance of preserving what the right hon. Gentleman described as the shield of the Whitley machinery. As I understand it, since the beginning of the National Health Service it has always been accepted that Whitley agreements must be in the form of recommendations to Ministers. As Ministers are responsible to Parliament, it is impossible to keep Parliament away from these problems. I would add that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has deliberately said that he has undertaken to look at the Whitley aspect of this problem.

MR. BULGANIN'S LETTER (PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on his reply to M. Bulganin's letter, with particular reference to the conditions on which he is prepared to participate in high-level talks in 1958.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the desire of people in this country that he should make a new effort to ensure as soon as practicable the holding of a summit meeting designed to establish a better basis for peace; and what has been done in recent weeks to follow up the official proposals made in December by the Russian Government.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the reply of Her Majesty's Government to the recent letter received from Marshal Bulganin.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take the necessary action to initiate discussions with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the possibility of a non-aggression pact being signed between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Great Britain.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The text of the Prime Minister's reply to the letter which he received from Mr. Bulganin on 11th December was published on 17th January. The Prime Minister intends to reply in due course to Mr. Bulganin's further letter of 8th January.

Mr. Swingler: Cs it not clear that the overwhelming majority of people everywhere want these summit talks to take place as proposed, and believe that they should take place at an early date? Will not the right hon. Gentleman therefore urge upon his right hon. Friend to propose a date on which these summit talks should take place?

Mr. Butler: I am naturally aware of the large degree of public opinion which is in favour of these talks. I am aware of the palls which have been held on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is at the present moment in touch with his colleagues at home here, and especially with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, with a view to framing an early reply to the second letter of Mr. Bulganin. I can only say that these matters, upon which there is such strong feeling, will undoubtedly be taken into account when that reply is framed and published.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that President Eisenhower and the French Prime Minister have accepted in principle the proposal of the Russian Prime Minister for a summit conference, can the Lord Privy Seal say whether diplomatic discussions have been initiated with a view to ensuring that adequate preparations are made for the proposed summit conference?

Mr. Butler: I can certainly say that, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he wishes to see preparations made and he has mentioned the medium of a Foreign Ministers' conference. The important thing is that preparations should be made. I would also add that it is important that there should be collaboration and consultation with our allies and with the United States Government in particular.

Mr. Dodds: Will the Lord Privy Seal explain why we, who are in the stickiest geographical position, are always on the defensive and never take the initiative? Why do we never reply to Russian efforts without making replies that worsen the situation rather than improve it? Why do we not endeavour to take the initiative from the Russians? If they are bluffing why do we not call their bluff in a way that will reassure puzzled people in this country that we are really trying for peace?

Mr. Butler: What is important is what the Prime Minister has said, namely, that we could not have a greater disillusionment or disappointment than a summit conference for which adequate preparation had not been made. He has therefore insisted that we shall have a preparatory period. I will undertake to—I think we would be right to do this—convey to my right hon. Friend the undoubted feeling that exists about the need for reaching the summit conference and having a successful one.

Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that President Eisenhower has already indicated that he does not propose to send any further reply to Marshal Bulganin on this matter of a summit conference, and whether Her Majesty's Government were consulted before President Eisenhower sent that reply? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that it is highly desirable to clear up as soon as possible the confusions surrounding this subject? Is it not the case that even if it is necessary to have preparations for such a conference there is no necessity for these preparations to take place through the medium of a Foreign Ministers' conference, to which the Russians have objected? Is it not possible to have the


preparations completed through diplomatic channels? Finally, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great deal to be said for a summit conference as a means of breaking the ice between East and West and not necessarily of finishing and completing every possible settlement?

Mr. Butler: I certainly agree that, as long as preparations are properly made, the exact medium is not a matter upon which one need stick. I would willingly go as far as to say that. On the question of precise consultation, I would need notice. On the question of the objective to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, I am sure that, provided the preparatory work, however it is done, indicates that this summit conference will be of value, we should be right, as I said in a recent interview, to go forward towards it. I would say finally that we do not intend long to delay our final answer to Mr. Bulganin's second letter. I suggest that it is better to await that full answer, which I hope will not disappoint the House of Commons, or hon. Members.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would press the right hon. Gentleman on one point. He said that the conference would be valuable only if the preparatory discussion showed that it would reach some result. Is he not aware that it is at least possible that the Russian proposals envisage a summit conference as a means of starting and not of completing a period of negotiation? Would he please consider that it might be of great value from that point of view, even if the preparatory discussion did not appear to be getting very far?

Mr. Butler: I think that is a legitimate point to make because it is the contact which matters and the results which flow from it. I will certainly convey those ideas to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Drayson: Is it not possible that this whole matter could be speeded up if the letters themselves were a great deal shorter?

Mr. Bevan: Is there not a distinction between preparations for a conference and preparations to find out whether a conference would be worth while? The right hon. Gentleman has confused the two issues. If there are to be preparations for a conference, is it not therefore

a fact that the decision to hold a conference should first be taken and if possible a date fixed and then preparations made for the conference? If, on the other hand, the preparations are to find out whether a conference would be worth while, is it not the case that in the meantime, while these secret discussions are taking place, accusations may be made which cannot be verified because they are secret and the whole atmosphere may be poisoned by recriminations before the conference is held?

Mr. Butler: I think all I need say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that we are aware of these difficulties and will take account of them.

Mr. H. Morrison: When the time comes that there is a break in the series of letters which we are receiving from Mr. Bulganin, would the Government themselves think of starting a correspondence on their own responsibility? Could not the Government out of their own thoughts and their own minds make approaches to the Soviet Government making their own positive suggestions for means whereby the peace of the world might be promoted, rather than spend their whole time answering letters from the Soviet Government?

Mr. Butler: I think that our next letter will have in it what the right hon. Gentleman desires—namely, ideas which will carry things further forward.

HUNGARIAN STOWAWAYS

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement regarding the 11 Hungarian stowaways to deport whom an attempt was made on Saturday, 18th January.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The party, which consisted of six adults and five children, boarded the British liner "Highland Monarch" in Rio de Janeiro without authority; and when they arrived in this country they were refused permission to land. Pending their return to Brazil they were temporarily accommodated by the shipping company concerned in a hostel in Sussex.
The fullest inquiries were immediately made. It appears that the three families emigrated voluntarily to Brazil, where they were granted political asylum. They were dissatisfied with conditions there and wished to come to this country.
After careful consideration no grounds were found for departing from the decision to refuse them permission to land. We have already received in this country more than 20,000 Hungarian refugees. Keeping in mind that the families in question had already been granted political asylum in Brazil, it was not thought right that because they had come without authority to this country they should be given priority over the many other Hungarians and other nationals who would like to settle here.
In view of the fact that one of the women was expecting to have a baby very shortly, special arrangements were made by the shipping company, at the request of the Home Office, to have a trained nurse on board the "Highland Monarch" on which this lady was to return to Brazil. The ship has a surgeon and a sick berth.
On Saturday, 18th January, when the time came to take the party to the steamship, the expectant mother refused to leave the hostel. In these circumstances, instructions were given that she and her husband and their children could remain in this country until the baby was born. The three men of the party ran away; and in the end the "Highland Monarch" sailed without any of the party.
I have now reviewed all the circumstances of the case most carefully and sympathetically. I am satisfied that the decision previously taken was in principle correct. However, in the application of policy to this particular case it is necessary, as has been recognised throughout, to have regard to the very advanced pregnancy of one of the women of the party. As already explained, I had decided, when she refused to travel, that she could remain here with her family until her baby was born. Some time may have elapsed before she is fit to travel after her confinement, in which case it will no longer be appropriate to treat the family as stowaways awaiting removal.
I have, therefore, decided that in the interests of humanity this family may be allowed to stay here. No such considerations apply in the case of the other two families; but in view of the difficulty of discriminating among three families of

stowaways who arrived in identical circumstances, I am prepared, exceptionally, to allow them to stay.
I should like to emphasise that this decision is due to the very special features of this case. It is not open to refugees who have found asylum in some other country to transfer themselves to the United Kingdom simply because they would prefer to be here. I am, therefore, ensuring that the strictest measures will continue to be taken to see that they do not.
As regards the allegations which have been made in regard to certain features of the present case, I have given instructions for a full and immediate review to be carried out of the arrangements for dealing with illegal immigrants who are refused permission to land in this country.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sure that the whole House will wish to thank the Home Secretary for the decision which he has reached and for the example which he has set to some of the officials who have been handling the case in the past. I think that we would also wish to thank him for his promise that there will be a review of the general arrangements for dealing with similar situations in the future. We all hope that it will be successful, because incidents of this kind can only be used to our detriment in the Iron Curtain countries.
There is one question which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he himself investigate the various allegations which have been made by the individuals concerned, and in the Press, about the events which took place last Saturday, with particular reference to the fact that the officials and the police who visited the hostel gave no notice of deportation to the warden or to the Hungarians, although the Press were informed in advance; that the police produced no written authority for the action which they were taking; that no interpreter was present to explain the situation to the Hungarians; and that photographers were warned by the police beforehand that they must not take photographs of any scenes of violence which might take place?

Mr. Butler: From the inquiries I have made I cannot accept that the last-named point is correct. I have seen the police


officers principally concerned and I must say that I think they carried out an extremely difficult task, which they were asked to do, with the maximum of humanity. If there is anything wrong I think that the responsibility should be placed on my shoulders, as Home Secretary, and not on the police who carried it out.
As to the question of notice being given to the warden of the hostel, I am informed that she was told the previous day that the police would call to collect the aliens. I do not think it was made clear that they were to be removed to be deported, but I am going into that point.
As for the authority of the police, they produced their warrant card. There were no representatives of the Home Office present at this incident. Those are the answers to the hon. Member's questions.

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that I referred to these as allegations. I wonder whether he has considered the statements of people who were there at the time and who suggest that no written document was produced by the police? Would he also consider discussing the matter with the journalists who were present and who allege that the police told photographers that no photographs of scenes of violence must be taken?

Mr. Butler: All I can say is that the reports which I have received to date do not confirm the latter point. If I receive any other reports I will consider them.

Sir T. Moore: Without going into the undoubtedly exaggerated newspaper reports, may we from this side of the House congratulate my right hon. Friend on the humanity which he has shown on this occasion?

Mr. Lipton: Will the Home Secretary say when these three men are to be released from Brixton Prison? Have

instructions been given for them to be released, so that they can stay with their families in this hostel or wherever else it may be?

Mr. Butler: They are to be released from Brixton Prison.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that every year for, I think, nearly ten years, a number of us have, on the appropriate occasion, impressed upon the Home Office the undesirability of allowing questions of this kind to rest on the Home Secretary's personal decision without any right of appeal to any kind of third-party judgment, a practice in which this country is virtually alone? In the light of this particular case, which illustrates how wrong an original decision can be and what damage can be done to the reputation of our country by taking wrong action of this kind, will not the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider the policy of the Home Office in the light of those suggestions, which have been so repeatedly made for so long?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am glad to have the opportunity of answering the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there was any mistake in the original decision at all. I think that the general policy on which we conduct our immigration regulations is right, and that we show great humanity in letting a great many foreigners, especially Hungarians, who want to come here, to come into the country. What I think went wrong on this occasion was some administrative arrangement; for instance, the men and women going to the hostel a long way from London after being refused permission to land. That is why I am having a complete review of all the administrative arrangements following upon the general lines upon which our immigration policy is conducted. I shall be very glad to give to the House, at a later date, an account of any alterations I may decide to make.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): After discussions through the usual channels arrangements have been made for a debate on the economic situation to take place on Thursday of this week, on a Motion to be tabled this afternoon by the Government. The business already announced for Thursday will be postponed. The remainder of the week's business remains as announced.
The House will wish to know that the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry on the alleged Disclosure of Information relating to the Raising of the Bank Rate, together with the evidence given before the Tribunal, will be available in the Vote Office about 4 p.m. today.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Lord Privy Seal make arrangements for an early debate on this Report?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter for the Chair, but, in any case, I think that hon. Members will need time to study the Report, and, also, the very voluminous evidence that has been published today with the Report itself. The question of a separate debate on the Report can be discussed through the usual channels.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I need say little about this Bill at this stage, because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained it fully during the earlier stages; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) supported the Bill on behalf of the Opposition, and the House has, so far, given it unanimous support without Amendment.
It is, I think, a good augury that, although there is no lack of pressing problems for our attention, the Third Reading of this Isle of Man Bill stands first on the Order Paper today on our reassembly, thus demonstrating our interest in the future of that loyal and happy island which gave us generous help in men, lives and money during the last two wars. I was glad to find, on arriving at the Home Office yesterday, that not only has my right hon. Friend a responsibility, among his manifold duties, for maintaining contact between the Government of the Isle of Man and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, but, also, that it was within my sphere of responsibility to assist him in doing so.
As he and my predecessor pointed out during the debate on the Second Reading, the Bill restores to the island its independence in fiscal and several other matters. It does so in a very simple way, and very briefly, by repealing various Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, and by confirming existing arrangements whereby our Commissioners of Customs and Excise will continue to help the island Government by collecting duties and Purchase Tax for them.
The background to the Bill is already familiar to hon. Gentlemen. Its background, and the reason why it is possible for us to legislate in this way, is that the island Government have willingly entered


into two agreements which have been set out in a White Paper presented last November, and I can assure the House that, thanks to those two agreements, the Government of the island will, after this Bill is passed, continue to co-operate with the United Kingdom on all matters of common concern; and that the legislation of Tynwald which is to replace our own legislation on the matters referred to in the Bill will be as enlightened as ours attempts to be, and will, indeed, so far as is appropriate, follow the general pattern of our own legislation.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: It is interesting to hear the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department saying that the Government of the Isle of Man will continue to co-operate with the Government of the United Kingdom and follow the same enlightened policy in regard to whatever it may be—he did not say quite what it was on which they were to co-operate with us. Before I criticise the Home Secretary, however, may I offer my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment, and express the hope that he will not occupy that position for too long.
In the debate on the Second Reading, the Home Secretary, unfortunately, conveyed a misleading impression to the House, in my opinion, in one important respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) asked whether the social welfare arrangements in the Isle of Man were comparable with those in this country. The Home Secretary said that he could allay my right hon. Friend's anxieties on that score
…in that the situation on the island is comparable to what we in our wisdom regard as suitable for the inhabitants of the mainland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 1186.]
It so happens that a constituent of mine went to live in the Isle of Man, and had to make application for National Assistance. I took up his case with the Isle of Man Board of Social Services and the Board, in a letter to me dated 7th December, said that the National Assistance Act does not provide for reciprocity in this respect. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is not this comparable provision made in the Isle of Man on the basis of which the Home Secretary asked us to accept this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: This is very interesting, but it is not in the Bill.

Mr. Lipton: What I am trying to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that we are entitled to object to the Bill on Third Reading if the preceding stage of the Bill went through the House on the basis of an assurance that we now find to be incorrect. The Home Secretary was not correctly advised. As a matter of fact, the position is that the applicant from Great Britain who is in need in the Isle of Man must have resided there continuously throughout the five years preceding the application for National Assistance. We make no such provision in the case of the Isle of Man citizen coming to this country.
I think the Home Secretary owes it to the House to give us an explanation of this matter, because he did create a misleading impression in the minds of many hon. Members who heard him ask the House to accept the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has made his point and has, perhaps, gone rather beyond what the strict rules of order allow. I think that he should be content with that. I really cannot find anything about legislation in the Isle of Man in this Bill, except what is necessary for the repeal of certain Acts and certain financial arrangements, and I do not think that on Third Reading I should be entitled to allow the hon. Member to proceed with the line of argument which he has suggested to us.

Mr. Lipton: I shall, of course, accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Having made my protest, I hope that some notice of it will be taken by the Home Secretary, who, so far as he can, does not make a habit of deliberately misleading the House in his speeches.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) said he had raised this point because a constituent of his had gone to the Isle of Man. Can he tell us why he went there? Was it because he was "fed up" with the hon. Member for Brixton, or was "fed up" with the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really could not allow that.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I should like to join with my hon. Friends in congratulating the Joint Under-Secretary of State on his appointment. We are delighted to see him at the Home Office, but I should also like to say—and I hope that this is not contradictory—how sorry we are that his predecessor is not still at the Home Office. We all have a very great respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), and we are very sorry that he has been sent to the Treasury. He deserves a better fate than that.
I want to take this opportunity of asking the Joint Under-Secretary whether he knows why beer should still be cheaper in the Isle of Man. I gather that this Bill will not change this situation at all. I should have thought it was far better to have beer cheaper in the United Kingdom. Cannot he arrange for this to be the other way round?

Mr. Speaker: This is out of order.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: With my hon. Friends, I should like to join in the congratulations which have been extended to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary on the change which has come to him. Whether it is promotion or not, I do not know, but he is certainly now in a very ancient office, and I imagine that he will be very happy there, although I sincerely hope that he will not be there too long.
In the earlier stages of the Bill, we have accepted its provisions, though at appropriate times we have raised certain queries. We were assured by the Home Secretary that the fears which we then voiced were groundless. I cannot, as has already been said, raise these matters now, but I hope that at some time, either privately or directly with the Isle of Man authorities, my hon. Friend will raise the points which he has tried to raise in this debate. We believed that there would be reciprocity between the two Governments, and I should like to feel that the

relationships between the island and ourselves are such that if that reciprocity does not at the moment exist the island will take steps to see that it does.
Having said that, I should like to say that we on this side of the House are very glad to see the island, at long last, achieve complete independence, certainly financial independence, under the British Crown. We hope that in the years to come the friendship and good feeling which have always existed between ourselves and residents in the Isle of Man will continue, and even be deepened by the action of the Government in putting through this Bill.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him one question? Can lie say whether there is anything in the Bill to facilitate further cultural exchanges between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man? I ask the question because there is an excellent comprehensive secondary school in the Isle of Man, and if more information about it were available in this country it might help to remove some of the foolish prejudices against comprehensive secondary schools which exist in some quarters in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ede: There are two. I opened both of them.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Renton: If, with the leave of the House, I may speak again, may I say that I should be out of order if I attempted to answer any of the points of substance raised. We shall bear them in mind to the extent that the hon. Gentlemen who made them did not make them in an entirely misconceived manner. I am most grateful to those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have congratulated me on my new appointment. I have contrived to have moved from the newest Ministry to the oldest Department of State in one move across the board.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CAYMAN ISLANDS AND TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I ask hon. Members if I may take their attention from a home island to some islands far-flung from this country. This Measure does not foreshadow momentous or far-reaching constitutional developments, and I do not think it involves matters of principle which are likely to divide us this afternoon. It affects only a few thousand people inhabiting less than 300 square miles of territory.
None the less, I make no apology for asking the House to give time to it because it represents an important stage in the history of the people whom it will affect—people who are our responsibility just as much as those living in any colonial territory.
The Cayman Islands consist of three small islands lying almost 200 miles to the north-west of Jamaica. They were discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1503, during his fourth and last voyage when he was searching for a route to India. There are about 9,000 people living there now and they are a prosperous community.
Their prosperity derives from their position on some important air routes in the Caribbean, from the money sent home by their highly competent seamen, and from the developing tourist industry. They also fish for the turtle, which is their symbol, and hon. Members who like turtle soup probably owe their pleasure in part to the skill of Caymanian fisher men.
The Turks and Caicos Islands lie about 450 miles north-east of Jamaica. They were discovered in 1512 by Juan Ponce de Leon. The 6,000 people who live there today are, by comparison, at present somewhat isolated and poor. The main shipping lane passes between them, but big ships do not call. Their main industry, the solar evaporation of salt, just about makes ends meet, with assistance from colonial development and welfare

funds and they receive a small grant-in-aid of administration from Her Majesty's Government.
Why is this Bill necessary at this particular juncture? The matter is complicated by the fact that the position of the two Dependencies is not, in law, exactly similar. The Cayman Islands are administered by a Commissioner, selected by the Secretary of State and appointed by the Governor of Jamaica. The Legislature consists of the Comissioner, who is President, a number of justices of the peace appointed by the Governor, and 27 elected vestrymen.
Under the Cayman Islands Act, 1863, the Governor of Jamaica has, as far as may be, the same powers and authorities in respect of the Cayman Islands as if they had been part of the Island of Jamaica. The Legislature of Jamaica may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Cayman Islands.
As for the Turks and Caicos Islands, their Legislature consists of the Commissioner, who is ex-officio President, and 11 others—three holding office under the Crown—appointed by the Governor of Jamaica. By an Order in Council of 1873, the Turks and Caicos Islands were annexed to, and form part of the Colony of Jamaica.
The Governor and Legislature of Jamaica have respectively the same jurisdiction, powers and authority over the Turks and Caicos Islands as they have over the Island of Jamaica. But neither the Cayman Islands Act, 1863, nor the Turks and Caicos Islands Order in Council of 1873, empowers Her Majesty in Council to constitute a Government and Legislature, other than the Government and Legislature of Jamaica, for each of the groups of islands. It is this power that the present Bill seeks to confer.
The constitutional developments which are contemplated in the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands are a consequence of the constitutional advance now taking place in the British West Indies which has, I know, the support and good wishes of us all in the House.
Jamaica, last November, advanced practically to the stage of complete internal self-government within the Federation of the West Indies. That Federation was inaugurated at the beginning of this month. These islands are


part of the Federation although their relationship to the Federal Government is the subject of special arrangements.
Now that these advances have been made in Jamaica and the Federation, the time has come to adjust and clarify the relationships of Jamaica and these islands and to make it possible for the people of the islands to have the increased degree of local autonomy which they desire and which Her Majesty's Government have agreed they should have.
The Bill is necessary to enable Her Majesty in Council to constitute a separate Government and Legislature for each Dependency. At the same time, account must be taken of the fact that their pace of constitutional advance cannot but be slower that that of Jamaica, and of the desirability—this is, I think, important—of their retaining administrative links with Jamaica, whose help is of very great value indeed to them.
I do not think that I need take up the time of the House by going into the Bill Clause by Clause today. It is an enabling Bill and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the constitutions which will be introduced as a result will take account of the wishes of the inhabitants, and will, in general, be in line with the arrangements, some of them informal, which already exist.
Because local consultations are still in progress I cannot, I am afraid, give the House detailed information about the proposed constitutions; but I can give some idea of their general pattern. The idea is that, in each group of islands, there will be legislative bodies consisting of some ex officio members, some nominated members, and a number of members elected by universal adult suffrage. In addition—and this will be a significant step—there will be Executive Councils consisting of officials and elected members of the Legislature, whom the Commissioner will normally be required to consult. This, as hon. Members will know, is, in fact, the general pattern that has proved successful elsewhere.
It may, perhaps, sound as though these are rather formal and ponderous bodies for places with such tiny populations, but, obviously, there must be machinery of this kind to make local participation in government possible. As I have said, very similar arrangements already exist, and work well.
I hope that I have explained why the Bill is necessary and what it is intended to achieve. I would add only this. If the Bill is given its Second Reading this afternoon the people of these islands will welcome it both as an indication of our interest in their welfare and as an endorsement of their wish for an increased say in the management of their affairs.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I can set the Government's mind at rest; their future is not at risk today, and they may look forward with confidence to getting a Second Reading for the Bill.
The Under-Secretary very properly reminded us of the long attachment of these islands to the British Crown. This is true. The Cayman Islands were first discovered by Christopher Columbus hundreds of years ago, and Sir Richard Grenville, whose name is well-known to everyone who ever learnt poetry at school, was the first to sight the Turks and Caicos Islands, as far as I am able to ascertain. Although the islands have had a very chequered relationship with the British Crown during the last two or three hundred years, the fact is that they have been of very great value to this country, especially to the ships of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Harold Davies: And the pirates.

Mr. Callaghan: We will come to the pirates later. The scurvy-ridden ships of the Royal Navy used to visit the Turks and Caicos Islands, 250 years ago, to find there the turtle—which is still fished for although the product is now less than it used to be, I understand because, the turtle was, of course, a very good remedy in avoiding scurvy. When I went to the Admiralty, in 1950, as Parliamentary Secretary, I was told that one of my perquisites as a member of the Board of Admiralty was some turtle soup. I imagine that the origin of it was that returning captains, knowing turtle soup to be a great delicacy, brought back a quantity for the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in the hope of getting a further appointment. I am sorry to say that I never managed to collect even a tin of it.
The relationship of the islands to the Royal Navy has been a very close one over the years. Indeed, men from both sets of islands, particularly from the Cayman Islands, still make their occupation service at sea, although I regret to say that that service is now more under the American flag than under the British. However, if the tankers pay very much better than service as an able-seaman pays, who can blame them? The revenues they send home are, moreover, a very important item in balancing the balance of payments of the islands, for even these small places, with populations of 6,000 and 7,000, have balance of payments problems.
This brings me to my first question to the Under-Secretary. The Turks and Caicos Islands have had a distressing time during the last few years, and, unless the situation has improved recently, matters are much the same. They depend mainly on the salt industry and, from the last account I read in the last Annual Report of the Administrator of the islands, the men there are working only three days a week. There was, indeed, a considerable amount—I use his words—of distress in the islands.
From what I can make out, the deficit between revenue and expenditure was made up only by a very substantial grant-in-aid from this country, very substantial in relation to the total budget, but, in fact, £40,000 out of the £94,000 forming the total revenue. Clearly, such a sum is small by comparison with, shall I say, £50 million, but £40,000 in this context matters a very great deal. Is provision being made to continue this grant-in-aid to the administration, without which the islands will clearly be in very great difficulties?
As regards the salt industry, the administrator—is it the Administrator or the Commissioner?—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Commissioner.

Mr. Callaghan: The Commissioner of the islands has obviously been very energetic in trying to find a market for salt from these islands through sales in North America. In his report, it is said that it was clear that a market for upwards of 50,000 tons of salt per annum could be found in North America. I see from the last statistics that they were shipping

about 16,000 tons altogether, of which only 6,000 were going to North America. There is a long way to go yet.
Could the Under-Secretary say whether this rate of increase is proceeding, and whether the facilities which exist in the islands are being improved so that they may get near their loading maximum? I understand that it is because of the inadequate loading facilities there that the islanders cannot get more salt away. If the islands are to stand on their own feet, small as they are, it is necessary to make proper arrangements so that they may get their exports away.
Finally, what is the employment position generally in the Turks and Caicos Islands? Is there a prospect that the islanders may look forward to a reasonable measure of employment?
The Bill itself seems to us to be quite unexceptionable. It arises out of the new arrangements which are to be made. Although this debate today will be neither long nor controversial, it is useful that tiny islands like these, which are part of the Commonwealth, although they contain only 6,000 men, women and children in one and 7,000 in the other, should nevertheless come under the scrutiny of the House of Commons from time to time. I should like to see more visits paid by Members of the House to these territories.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) actually visited the Cayman Islands and the Turks Islands when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies and there was a delegation from this House consisting of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has also been there, so that over the last nine or ten years we have kept up a strand of interest with these overseas territories which should be maintained.
There is still a direct responsibility for these territories through the House of Commons. Their well-being is our concern and their future is our responsibility. I join with the Under-Secretary in wishing them well in the future and in hoping that the new administrative arrangements which are to be made will be to their benefit and that their economic future will be well founded and secure.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I endorse all that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has said and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for at least making some of the things in the Bill clearer to me than they were. We have had the whole of the Christmas Recess to study the Bill and that is plenty of time, but it is not an easy Bill. There are certain obscurities and apparent omissions which I had not fully understood until I heard my hon. Friend's speech.
As I understand, we are legislating today for a sort of triple responsibility for these islands. I gather that constitutionally their future will remain with the Colonial Office. Administratively, they will continue to be assisted by Jamaica and, financially, they will be helped by the new Federal Government at Trinidad.
That is a somewhat confusing picture. It may be a sensible approach from the practical point of view. Although these things may be difficult for us to follow here, they are of very great importance to these islands, for which we are responsible, and it is our duty to try to understand what we are doing when we legislate in matters of importance to them, as we are doing today. I am not criticising the Bill; I am simply trying to clarify in my own mind its effects and repercussions.
We all appreciate that Jamaica will shortly reach the stage of complete internal self-government and we all welcome that. As I see it, when that happens, these Dependencies want to leave their constitutional future not in the hands of Jamaica but in the hands of the Colonial Office. I gather that Jamaica recognises and accepts that point of view.
It is obvious that, administratively, the islands cannot stand on their own feet yet, because they need the staff and services which Jamaica has provided and which, we hope, Jamaica will continue to provide. Financially, they will receive their grants-in-aid, which they formerly received from the United Kingdom Government, from the new Federal Government. So we have this thrice-divided responsibility with local autonomy as far as possible, but with administrative help from Jamaica, financial help from the Federation and constitutional developments in the hands of the Colonial Office.
I think that we need not worry about the administrative side, because Jamaican assistance has been generously given in the past and, presumably, will continue as before. We need not worry too much about the constitutional side, because both sides of the House of Commons are agreed that these islands should have an appropriate degree of self-government as quickly as possible. However, I am a little concerned about the financial side, particularly about the Turks and Caicos, which have been in some financial difficulty and which do not want to get less money.
In the past they had grants-in-aid from us and now they will have them from the Federation. Can we be told a little more about that? We are to pay the Federation a total block grant out of which the Federation will make individual allocations. However, the islands are not to be represented in the Federal Legislature, so they will have nothing to say about this matter. On what basis will they receive financial assistance? Will the Federation make available out of the block grant the same amount which we gave? Will it be a percentage of the total grant, or a fixed amount per annum? I am not clear about how this will work out and it would be helpful to know more about it.
More important still for the well-being of the people in the islands is the future of the tourist industry in the Caymans and of the salt industry in the Turks and Caicos. These islands are so seldom discussed here that I beg leave to trespass on the time of hon. Members, because, although we do take an interest in the affairs of these islands, we seldom have a chance to express our interest publicly.
I want to know how they are developing socially and economically as well as politically. For instance, I do not know what progress is being made in the elimination of mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands. That may seem a small matter, but it is extremely important, because it is perhaps the biggest single factor militating against the expansion of the tourist industry in the summer months. I do not know what progress is being made in the provision of new roads, another important factor. In the Turks, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said, there is the problem of inadequate loading


and transport facilities for the salt industry which is basic to the economy of the islands and which has been in great need of assistance for a considerable time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who, with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), visited the islands, has asked me to express her regret at not being able to be present. Her absence has been caused by an aeroplane delay. She wanted to take part in the debate, because she is one of the few Members who has visited the islands. She asked me to draw attention to their strategic importance, because the islands cover the approaches to the Windward and Mona Passages and accommodate two important American bases.
My hon. Friend would also have drawn attention, I think, to the growing fishing industry in the Turks and Caicos and the exploration work for oil. The Times pointed out last month that there has been a serious financial depression in the Turks and Caicos in recent years which has been only partly relieved by our grants in aid.
These practical economic aspects of the life of the islands are more important to the islands in many respects than the political issues discussed in the Bill. I feel that hon. Members would welcome a little more explanation about those economic aspects and I hope that we can have some enlightenment about them from my hon. Friend.
We all wish these islands well and, we all wish the whole West Indies well. Despite its obscurities, I believe that the Bill is welcomed in the islands, and I think that the Colonial Office and Jamaica are doing everything possible to ensure an appropriate degree of internal self-government, while, at the same time, maintaining the very valuable administrative connection with Jamaica. I therefore welcome the Bill and support the Second Reading.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: There are one or two small points about this Bill, which is very significant for these islands, which are not quite clear. The first concerns the position of the Governor. At the moment, the Governor of Jamaica is responsible for

the administration of the islands. Is it proposed that in future the islands will come under the direct administration of the Governor in Jamaica?
I ask that because I was fortunate enough to be staying with Sir Hugh Foot when he made his last visit to the islands prior to his departure for Cyprus and I can say how much his influence was valued and esteemed in the islands and what a terrific job he did for them. I should not like to think that that link was being broken or minimised in any way. I hope that we can be given an assurance that in future the same kind of relationship which existed between the Governor of Jamaica and the Administrator of the islands will be maintained.
I would like to know more about who is to speak for the islands in the new Federal Legislature. At present, the islands have no direct representation of their own and I should have thought that the Jamaican representatives will have enough to do making their own case. It may be that the well-being of these islands, somewhat more remote from us in future than now, may go by the board unless there is a specific organisation to represent their affairs.
The other point I want to make relates to the internal constitutional arrangements about which, for obvious reasons, the Under-Secretary could not make much comment today, but I hope that they will be on a basis of universal adult suffrage. I take it that that will be so. If not, I should like some assurance that we shall make as much progress internally in the islands as has taken place in the rest of the West Indies.
Finally, could we have some information about what schemes are taking place in the islands under C.D. & W.? Are they likely to be increased in the future, or will they get less under the new set-up?
May I, in conclusion, say how much I appreciate the assistance given to my hon. Friend—I must call him my hon. Friend, although he sits on the opposite side of the House—the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) and to myself whilst we were in the Caribbean quite recently.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I regard this Bill as necessary in the new Federation that is to be


brought into being this March. The people in the Cayman Islands have for a long time been urging some alteration in their Constitution, and I believe that while the Bill does not give them the full powers that exist in some of the islands it is, at least, a first step to that goal.
Reference has been made to the subject of distress. Whilst we are giving these powers to the Caymans and the other islands, it is imperative to recognise that we shall still have to give them some grant-in-aid if they are to maintain their economy under this Bill. In fact, I believe—and I hope I am not out of order in saying this—that the amount allowed after the Federation Conference in London, and which is embodied in the Bill, is not as much as that which will be given to the Leewards, the Windwards and the Turks, and will impose a large burden on Trinidad and Jamaica in the new Federation set-up.
Therefore, while I believe that federation can solve many of the problems in the Caribbean, we ought to recognise that we shall have to do much more in the transitional stages in granting aid, particularly in the Leewards and the Windwards. Also, we shall have to give all the assistance we can to the Federation to help to attract capital into that area in order to absorb the 20 per cent. unemployment which exists in many of the islands. I hope that all these islands, with their new advancement, will be helped not only by us but by the Federation in establishing another step towards self-government.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I welcome this Bill and I wish to make only a few comments upon it. The first relates to the type of legislatures which the Under-Secretary of State suggested would be set up. I think he said that they might be regarded as ponderous and elaborate. I think that those two adjectives describe the kind of legislatures which he anticipated.
In each of these groups of islands there is a population of between 6,000 and 7,000 people. Is it really necessary, in such groups with such small populations, to have the machinery of legislature which he proposed, involving a commissioner or an administrator, ex-officio members, nominated members and elected members? These islands are to come under

the Caribbean Federation. So far as the larger powers are concerned, they will he dealt with in the Federal Parliament. Surely, for the small populations which are involved, it would be sufficient to have legislatures elected by adult suffrage, as he proposed the elected members should be appointed, under the commissioner or the administrator, without the addition of ex-officio members and nominated members to make the machinery so elaborate.
My second suggestion about the administration of these islands is this. Reference has been made on both sides of the House to the social and economic conditions of these peoples. As I see it, they are in danger of becoming the Cinderella islands of the West Indies. They will not have direct representation in the Federal Parliament. The economic aid which will be given to them from this country will have to proceed through that Federal Parliament. The position of people in distress is often acute. A considerable number of the male workers in the Turks and Caicos Islands have to leave their families and seek work in the Bahamas. I think that all of us would want to be sure, before this Bill goes through, that not only shall the economic aid be maintained from this country, but that it shall be increased.
Whenever economic aid to the colonial countries is discussed, there is pressure from all quarters of the House for increased aid, and I support the plea that has been made on both sides of the House that, in view of the changes which are made in the Bill and the circuitous way in which aid will be given by this country, there should be a definite assurance that the people of these islands do not suffer.
My next point relates to the powers in the Bill for application in periods of emergency. I believe that those of us who believe in democracy should be very careful about the extension of powers under which democratic rights can be suppressed. I refer to the rights of freedom of speech, of association, of movement, of the Press, and of meeting. All of us very much hope that in the case of these islands the necessity will not arise for declarations of states of emergency and emergency laws, but I suggest that before the House adopts this Bill the purpose of these Clauses should be made clearer.
In Clause 3, we see that
…Her Majesty may by Order in Council confer power on any authority to make, in relation to periods of emergency, such laws for any of the said Islands…
I think that we should have from the Government Front Bench an indication of the authorities on which it is intended that power should be conferred. I hope that the House will be very careful indeed not to pass Clauses in forms of words which will enable states of emergency and the repudiation of domestic rights to be carried out in such a way that, whilst our control remains, we have not the power to express our views.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the recent legislation which has been introduced in the Ghana Parliament about emergency laws where, if emergency laws are applied by the Government, they must be brought before the Parliament within a very limited period and the emergency laws and any Acts under them must be endorsed by that Parliament. That seems to me a democratic advance, and when we give powers under this Bill for the use of emergency powers we should be very careful indeed to see that, so long as these territories remain under the Colonial Office, it will be the right of this Parliament to challenge those emergency laws and to inquire about their necessity.
Those are the three points I wanted to raise on the Bill. I welcome the Bill, as other hon. Members have done, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his introduction of it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: I do not want to delay the House more than is necessary, because my right hon. Friend will be taking the bowling in a moment on another matter, but with your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, it would be for everyone's convenience if I say a word or two about the most constructive points put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I think that the economic position of the islands is the point which has attracted the attention of most hon. Members. The position in the Turks and Caicos Islands, as hon. Members have said, is not as fortunate as that of the Cayman Islands. Subject to the approval of the Estimates,

they will receive their grant-in-aid of administration from Her Majesty's Government this year as they have since 1956, and it is contemplated that next year, if they need it, they will receive a grant-in-aid from the Government of the Federation, which in its turn will receive a block grant from Her Majesty's Government.
This point was taken up by the hon. Members for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I will digress for a moment, if I may. I cannot give the House an absolute undertaking that the grant-in-aid will be precisely the same as at present. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that it will be for the Government of The West Indies to decide how to divide the block grant which will be made from the Government. The block grant, when it is allocated for five years, will be based on the projected requirements of the various territories in the Federation. I think that one must presume that the Government of The West Indies will have concern to see that the application of that block grant will be made in ratio to the reasons for which the Government have made that block grant.
As for what we could do about it if anything went wrong, I say that it will last for five years and at the end of that time it will be for the Government to say, "You did not appropriate these funds in the way that we felt you ought to have done and we must make a change in the allocation". The system by which this will work will mean that the Dependencies, such as those under question this afternoon, will receive their fair share of the block allocation.
My hon. Friend said that he was a little concerned about this, especially about the fact that these territories would not be directly represented in the administration of the Federation. That is perfectly true, but they will, of course, be represented by the members from the Colony of Jamaica. There was no general desire either in the Cayman Islands or the Turks and Caicos Islands that they should have, at this stage, direct representatives in the Federal Assembly. I will go a little further, because the hon. Member for Eton and Slough talked about the application of laws. I think he said that it was a rather top heavy arrangement that we were making for these small Dependencies and that, in


general, the larger laws would be applied by the Federal Assembly.
With great respect, that is not correct, because I mentioned in my opening remarks the special relationship which these Dependencies would have to the Federation. What will happen is that no law made by the Federal Assembly will be applicable to these Dependencies unless specifically stated. Their relationship through Jamaica is about the right balance. We feel that it is in accordance with what the representatives in these territories require and wish at this stage. They have their representation through the members in Jamaica and, of course, the very strong ties with the Governor of Jamaica. Everything exists which is necessary to make us feel happy that the allocation of the grant aid, which will continue as far as we are concerned in the block grant to the Federation, will be properly applied to these Dependencies.

Mr. Callaghan: I am told that the Prime Minister of Jamaica is taking a very special interest in these islands. That is the best safeguard they can have in view of the small population. But suppose that something went radically wrong. It is not much consolation for them to know that at the end of five years we would be able to cut off a certain amount of the Federal block grant. Would we have power in the interim period to make a grant-in-aid?

Mr. Profumo: Not in so far as grant aid is concerned. Of course, colonial development and welfare will still continue to be allocated straight from the Mother Country. There are those two forms of assistance.
Regarding grant aid, I want to be absolutely frank. There would be no way in which, within the first five years, these finances could be allocated differently.

Mr. Blyton: Surely the position will be reviewed at the end of five years if the Federal Parliament finds it impossible to carry the burden of taxation for the people in the Leeward, Windward, and Turks and Caicos Islands.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. When we give the block grant to the Federal Government it will take into consideration the existing requirements of grant aid of all the territories within the Federation. Based on that amount of money which is

allocated, it will be possible for the Government to make a reallocation regarding the various territories concerned.

Mr. Blyton: I am not talking about that at the moment. I am arguing about the end of the five-year period when the aid is cut off entirely. It may mean intolerable taxation or a review of the position.

Mr. Profumo: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. What I was saying was that the block grant will be reviewed at the end of five years. It would be at that stage, when we make another block allocation to the Government, that we could say "You did not do all that which we thought you were going to do, and we must take all that into consideration". I think that hon. Members can rest assured that this proposal will work in the way that we all intended. It is very valuable that we should have had this debate, because I have no doubt that what we have said this afternoon will be read in wider circles.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) mentioned, the Turks and Caicos Islands depend very greatly on the production of salt by solar evaporation and its export, and things have not gone smoothly with this industry. Two experts from the Salt Division of Imperial Chemical Industries have visited the islands and have advised on both production methods and marketing. We expect very shortly to provide a substantial grant from colonial development and welfare funds to enable the industry to be re-equipped and reorganised on the lines recommended.
The plan is to get new equipment to the islands by May, and we very much hope that these measures will set the industry on its feet and enable it to pay its way. I am very glad to have this opportunity to say how grateful the Government are for what has been done by Imperial Chemical Industries.

Mr. Brockway: And the C.D.C.

Mr. Profumo: And the C.D.C., of course, bat we were grateful for their advice.
The hon. Member was quite right, for the Commissioner has been very active in North America, and facilities will be made available, and I hope very much that the re-equipment, aided by colonial development and welfare funds, will


enable adequate shipments to be made and the loading rate to be improved. This ought to have a very favourable effect on the employment situation in the islands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton asked me how the eradication of mosquitoes is progressing in the territory. I can only say, in general, that we have had, of late, extremely good results. I grant him that this is a most important matter, and it is one we are keeping under constant consideration.
As to the road programme, there is a £150,000 programme at present in progress.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mir. Chetwynd) asked about the relationship with the Governor. I should like to join with him in the tribute I am very glad he paid to Sir Hugh Foot for all that Sir Hugh Foot has done there and for the interest he took in the islands when he was the Governor of Jamaica. Indeed, I know that Sir Hugh Foot would welcome our good wishes for the new task he has recently taken on. I am glad to say that the relationship will remain the same as it always has. The Governor will continue to be the Governor of these territories to all intents and purposes, will continue to keep a fatherly eye and to give advice, and so on. He will continue to be able to have a considerable influence on those Dependencies, whose advance, as I have said, will, naturally, be slower than that of Jamaica itself.
I said in my first speech on the Bill that there will be universal suffrage in the elections when the new conditions come into being if the Bill passes.
I want to make clear a matter which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough touched upon, relating to emergency laws. It arises upon Clause 3. I agree that the Clause says that various authorities can be empowered to make regulations for an emergency. There are three major authorities. There is the Federal Authority; there is the authority of the Colony of Jamaica; and there is the local authority, if I may so call it, of the Dependency concerned.
If we pass a Bill of this sort we have to see that all three authorities can have

the legal right to make emergency regulations. All sorts of different emergencies may arise. If there is a local emergency only it would be the local assembly which would make the emergency regulations. If there were a larger emergency affecting, perhaps, all that part of the Caribbean, then it would be right for the Jamaican emergency regulations to override local emergency regulations. Right off the cuff, I can think of one example. In time of war or of a major international emergency it would be quite right that the Caribbean Federation should be able to override any other local emergency regulations made.
That is the only reason for this provision. I think it is right to make such a provision in a Bill of this sort. There is nothing sinister in this, I can assure the hon. Member. I think the arrangements we have made, though he may say they are top heavy, are in line with what the people there require and have asked the Government to institute. I think I can say, in reassuring the hon. Member, that these are on the lines, he would agree, the local people required.

Mr. Brockway: All that I asked was, if the emergency laws are applied, whatever the authority, the responsible, democratically elected representatives shall have an opportunity to endorse those emergency laws.

Mr. Profumo: Yes, that is a matter of detail which I think we shall have to deal with perhaps when we reach a further stage of the Bill. I wanted to make the matter clear in general so that the hon. Member would not think something was being done which would, perhaps, not be in line with the desires and requirements of the local people.
I am sorry to have detained the House, but I hoped that it would be for the convenience of the House to hear these further remarks. I should like to say how grateful we are that the Second Reading of this Bill has had so smooth a passage accorded it by both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This also is really an enabling Bill to make it possible to implement the White Paper policy set out in May last year in Cmd. 9768 on Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. Its purpose in regard to the Special List, to which I and, I know, many hon. Members on both sides of the House attach the utmost importance, is to put the Government in a position to be able to meet various financial obligations which we have assumed under certain special agreements entered into with certain Colonial Territories, such obligations as payment of pensions, contributions to salary while an officer is en disponibilité, and contributions, if necessary, to compensation.
This is not, I think, the occasion for me to speak of the compensation schemes for those who leave the Service. We are here far more concerned with those who stay on in the Service. Nor, I think, would it be in order for me to speak at length on the efforts which we have made in recent years, with much backing from the Territorial Governments concerned, to secure recognition of the paramount importance of having impartial and independent public service commissions in territories which are gaining independence within the Commonwealth. In this way, and by the signature of public service agreements, we have shown the great importance we attach to this, and that promotion and other Civil Service matters should be, as in the United Kingdom, kept away from political control. This is not the occasion to discuss these issues, but they are of the first importance.
I am glad to see one of my predecessors on the Front Bench opposite, and he would, I am sure, agree with me that no Secretary of State for the Colonies could fail to be conscious of his solemn obligations to the Overseas Service and of the indispensable work which its members are doing for the welfare of Colonial Territories. I, like my predecessors, have seen at first hand in the last three and a half years much of their courage and

loyalty and good humour, patience and integrity.
I have seen men and women facing situations which they never envisaged when they first joined the Colonial Service. I have seen them meeting new situations quite different in kind but just as challenging as those which confronted their predecessors, and I have seen them giving complete and absolute loyalty to new Governments which have emerged in the Colonies in recent years. I have watched them, as one is bound to do, facing often many frustrations and disappointments but never letting their enthusiasm be soured or their courage grow dim. They have, I think, to an unequalled degree what Lord Milner, another great predecessor of ours, once called the British trump card;
The power of our individuals overseas to fit into the most incongruous situations and make the best of limited opportunities without troubling their heads about the imperfections of systems.
But it must be our task as far as we can to try to perfect the system.
These are people for whom the House have a special regard and responsibility. In 1954, my predecessor, Lord Chandos, proclaimed the formation of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service as the successor to the Colonial Service. His statement announced safeguards for officers whose service is cut short owing to constitutional changes. It was really quite a revolutionary statement for, for the first time, it was recognised explicitly that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have a definite obligation towards certain categories of officers.
The purpose of setting up the new Service was to define these categories, to separate them from that huge body known as the Colonial Service and give them a collective title. The statement of 1954 was not an end but the beginning of a new deal. The next step was the issue of the White Paper, Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, in May of 1956. There were two aspects of that White Paper on the policy and organisation of Her Majesty's Overseas Service.
In the first place, we announced in the White Paper our intention to recruit people with the necessary qualification far secondment to Colonial Territories approaching self-government and to Commonwealth countries that had already attained that status, on request from the


Governments concerned. We said at the time that lists would be prepared of those who were ready and available to accept service of this kind and, if the demand rose to substantial proportions and regular employment for a number of years could be foreseen, these people would come into the regular employment of the United Kingdom Government for service overseas. This body of officers has since been generally referred to as the Central Pool.
Secondly, in the White Paper last year we argued that this was only part of the problem. We said, and I think with general agreement, that where constitutional changes took place which fundamentally affected the conditions of serving officers, compensation schemes had been and would be negotiated with the Governments concerned, but where, as in the Territories which comprise the Federation of Nigeria, acute staffing difficulties existed, special arrangements must also be made to help create conditions which would encourage officers to remain in Nigeria.
So the White Paper proposed as its second proposal, subject to the agreement of the Governments concerned, to establish a Special List of officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service who would be in the service of Her Majesty's Government and would be seconded to the employing Governments. In the first place, this Special List would apply to overseas officers in the Federal and Regional Governments of Nigeria, bust it might later be extended by agreement to other Territories.
As to the first part of these proposals, the Central Pool, I am sorry to say that experience has forced me to the most reluctant conclusion that there are very formidable difficulties in the way of the proposed policy for a central register and pool as outlined in the White Paper. The main difficulty that we have found is guaranteeing a continuing career for an officer recruited into the Central Pool initially for a particular job in a particular territory, and guaranteeing him also a succession of jobs of ascending importance and level of responsibility during his career. This has been a great disappointment, but in order to see the matter in perspective, we should look at the picture as a whole.
Governmental Departments concerned with the problem of supplying experts for service overseas have their own records of suitable people, and these can be called upon by any Department which is in search of a suitable officer. In practice, however, we have found that younger suitable men are not likely to be available at short notice for assignments overseas, and the useful part of these records is that confined to older retired officers who are mainly interested in short-duration jobs. We have come to the conclusion that younger officers must either be found by advertising or by selections from serving officers in the United Kingdom and the Colonial Territories.
Some indication of the way in which our mind was moving was given in the House on 26th March last year by the Lord Privy Seal, deputising for the Prime Minister. He said:
…the creation of a pool of administrative and technical officers must wait evidence that there is a substantial demand for their services and that regular employment for them can be foreseen for a number of years. It is intended to test this demand by improving the existing arrangement by which members of the Home and Overseas Civil Service can be made available to Commonwealth countries without prejudice to their pension rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 96.]
My right hon. Friend added that legislation would be necessary. Here is the legislation, and provision is made for this in Clauses 2 and 3 in respect of the Home Civil Service.
Clause 2 provides for the making of Orders to govern pensions earned while in the Overseas Service, and Clause 3 provides for the preservation of pension rights already acquired. The House realises, and all hon. Members who are well-informed about Colonial matters know, that many appointments are already being made to the Colonies on secondment or temporary transfer from Home Government Departments, like the General Post Office, and from local authorities and other public bodies, like the B.B.C. Over the last three years I have been deeply indebted to my colleagues' Departments and bodies like the B.B.C. for the co-operation they have shown. These Clauses will help forward this good work. When the Bill is law we shall ask the Government of the Colonies to enact comparable legislation to preserve the pension rights of officers in their


own service who have been transferred under the Bill.
So much for the first purpose, the creation of a register and Central Pool. As to the second purpose of the White Paper, I he Special List, there is a more hopeful situation to record. The 1954 White Paper, as I have said, was not an end but the beginning of a new deal. Thereafter we considered urgently not only the general question of the future structure of the service but the particular problem that arises, especially in Nigeria, where officers have to be given the right to retire, with compensation, if they wished to do so, yet neither Her Majesty's Government nor the employing Governments want them to go. We decided, therefore, as I announced then, that as and when circumstances make it desirable officers of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service should be offered transfer to the Special List.
Those in the Special List will be actually in the service of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and will be seconded to the overseas Government. Salaries and terms of employment will be as agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Territorial Governments. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will pay their pensions, recovering the money from the Government concerned, and will look after them if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. If a displaced officer cannot be found other work immediately, he will, if necessary, be kept on full pay for up to five years, the commitment being shared between Her Majesty's Government and the Territorial Governments.
On behalf of the British Government, I signed Special List agreements with the four Nigerian Governments at the Constitutional Conference last June. Pensionable officers in the service of these Governments have been invited to join the Special List. We are now only in the very early days of that opportunity. They have five years in which to join. So far about 120 officers in Nigeria out of the 2,000 eligible have applied to join, but I repeat that they have five years in which to make up their minds, and the applications are coming in pretty steadily. Curiously enough, and not because of this debate, there were twenty applications

this morning. I cannot claim to be satisfied with the position any more than can any other hon. Member who knows the staffing problem in Nigeria.
We have arranged with Sir John Martin, who will be well known on both sides of this House and who is the Deputy Under-Secretary of State responsible for Overseas Service matters, to go to Nigeria. He is now in that country examining the position. I have asked him to consider any alternative arrangements, either within the framework of the Special List or outside it, which might help to ensure that overseas officers will remain in Nigeria so long as their services are required, to assist in the difficult transitional period before and after the attainment of self-government and until African civil servants are available to take their places. The application to Malaya of the Special List procedure is the subject of current and cheering negotiations with the Government of Malaya.
This is the background to the Bill, and in the course of my observations I have referred to certain Clauses in it. The House will notice that the Bill makes no distinction between the Special List officers and those in the Central Pool, but refers in Clause 1 to officers to be available for civilian employment in the public service of overseas territories, and thereafter in the Bill to "officers to whom this Act applies". This is because we think that in practice it would be undesirable, and indeed unnecessary, to draw a hard and fast line between the two categories of officer. For example, Special List officers whose services are no longer required in Nigeria, and who are held on unemployment pay under the directions of the Special List agreements, may become in effect the first members of the Central Pool for, service in the overseas territories.
Subsection (4) of Clause 1 ensures that no servant of an overseas Government can be appointed without the consent of the Government concerned, which ma be either specific, directed to the individual, or as part of a general arrangement like the Special List agreements. So if at any stage an appointment under the Act of any particular individual serving, for example, in Ghana were under consideration, this Clause would ensure that the appointment would not be made


without the consent of the Government of Ghana. In the case of Malaya, where a Special List agreement is under consideration, appointments under the Act would, of course, be in accordance with the terms of any such agreement. I hope it is not necessary for me to stress that no overseas Government need fear that Her Majesty's Government will entice its staff away or enrol them either in the Central Pool or in the Special List.
Clause 4 of the Bill contains special provisions relating to police officers. These are necessary because United Kingdom police officers are protected when they are on temporary transfer from one police force to another by statutory provisions regarding discipline and the right of reverting to their parent force. The Police Overseas Service Act, 1945, extended similar protection to members of home police forces enlisting in an overseas police force under the control and at the expense of a Secretary of State. Under such an arrangement many United Kingdom policemen are now serving in Cyprus. Clause 4 of this Bill, and the Second Schedule to it, amend the 1945 Act so that individual police officers can be appointed under this Bill for limited periods with service overseas.
Finally, in regard to the Clauses, under Clause 6 officers can be appointed to a wide variety of public services under overseas Governments, municipal or local authorities or bodies corporate established for public purposes, or to any Federal Government or outside authority like the East African High Commission.
I have heard of anxiety being expressed by some officers serving in Nigeria lest, in consequence of transferring to the Special List, their pensions under the eagle eye of the Treasury should become automatically liable for United Kingdom taxation, whether or not they are resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes. In the ordinary way, as hon. Members will know, Special List pensions being paid out of United Kingdom Government funds would be chargeable to United Kingdom Government tax, even in the case of non-resident pensioners. It has been agreed, however, that so much of a Special List officer's pension as

relates to his service with overseas Governments, or other public bodies overseas, will be exempted from Income Tax if he is not resident here. This provision will be embodied in an early Finance Bill.
As to Estate Duty, if when the pension arrangements envisaged in the Bill are completed they are found to involve more liability to Estate Duty than would have arisen if benefits relating to overseas government service had been paid directly by the overseas Governments concerned, then exempting legislation will also be introduced to deal with this point.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about the staff position, primarily in Nigeria, but not exclusively there. It may be of some interest, therefore, if I conclude by giving the latest recruitment figures for the year that has just ended. The figures deal only with Colonial Office appointments, that is, overseas officers appointed to the administration or to professional branches where full professional qualifications are required. In 1956, 1,467 officers were selected for appointment. Last year the number grew to 1,689. These figures are not quite comparable, because the 1956 figure left out cases in which officers had declined appointment, but even allowing for this fact we more than held our own in the year that has just ended. Of particular interest is the fact that we made 284 appointments, mostly on contract to Nigeria, and this is higher than the total number of entitled officers—that is, those entitled to retire with compensation—in either the East or the West taken separately.
These figures are encouraging but, as I said, I am by no means satisfied with the situation in Nigeria, nor are the Governments concerned. However they are encouraging, and the service still offers a fine career for men of courage and imagination. This Bill will help us to do our duty by them and, through them, to the territories which they serve.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Secretary of State say how many officers declined appointment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not certain, but I will let the hon. and learned Gentleman know at the close of this debate.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I think that all of us are in general agreement regarding the principles set out in the Bill. Although, to some extent, the Bill is a complicated one because of the provision made in regard to pensions, nonetheless the principles underlying it are pretty simple.
The Bill records, of course, another stage in the adaptation of the Colonial Service for the broad purposes which we as a nation pursue in our Colonial policy, and regrettable as some of us may fear and feel are the effects of that policy on the Colonial Service, I think that we are right to try to adapt the Service to meet the growing needs and changes brought about by the fulfilment of British purpose.
One is tempted to look back at the Service as one knew it a few years ago. After the war we made some serious efforts to reorganise the Service along new lines, and I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done during the war years by the members of the Devonshire Committee and to the influence of their work on subsequent changes which took place. In mentioning the Devonshire Committee, I should like to associate with it, and with the work of the Colonial Office in this field since, the names of Sir Ralph Furse and of Sir Charles Jeffries, both of whom made the organisation of the Colonial Service a great deal of their life work. I think that they carried through excellent jobs.
One should also, I think, understand what happened in the years immediately after the war. We adopted a policy of more liberal recruitment and of improved facilities for training. We are grateful to the universities, particularly London, Oxford and Cambridge, for the help they gave in equipping themselves for training cadets in the new tasks which our colonial administration was expected to discharge.
In the Colonial Services themselves, we also removed racial discrimination so far as pay and promotion were concerned and we offered new facilities for the training of local people in their service so that they might take up responsible positions in local administration. We also provided for the poorer Colonies various schemes whereby they could get well qualified

persons for the jobs they had in hand. As the Secretary of State has reminded us, we set up Public Service Commissions in order that justice might be done in the respective territories. One final example of what has been done in the last decade or so is that of breaking down the isolation and insularity of officials in the field.
The effect of all this reorganisation was to bring the United Kingdom Government into the work, particularly the Treasury, to pay for recruitment schemes, for the training of the Service and for a number of special schemes under which expert distiguished people could go and perform services in the respective territories. After all that reorganisation work, there was. I think, great hope in the Service, and a renewed capacity for service which all of us certainly appreciated.
The Secretary of State paid a tribute to the work, the loyalty, the integrity, the efficiency and the quality of the Colonial Service. I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in my testimony from my experience of its high quality. Sometimes, I think, the critics of anti-colonialism have not sufficiently recognised the very high standard of the work and the great contribution which these men and women made to civilisation and the extension of freedom.
The work done has been described by a number of writers, such as Sir Charles Jeffries and Kenneth Bradley and in biographies by governors, but I think that the public would appreciate most the work of Grimble in his description of the spirit of administration so wonderfully well set out in his Pattern of the Islands. Everywhere the imagination of the public has been struck by the humanity shown, the insight, and the enlightenment of his administration. May I say that the number of such men is by no means small; they are pretty general in the Service.
When we look back on our colonial history, I think, too, that we are impressed by the very great contribution which some of our distinguished governors and others have made to colonial well-being. I think, for instance, of a man so little known as Dundas and of his work for co-operation among the Chagga people in Tanganyika. I think, too, of people like Cameron in Tanganyika and Nigeria, of Guggisberg in the Gold Coast, of Arden Clarke in the Gold


Coast, of Selwyn Clarke as a Japanese prisoner in Hong Kong on behalf of our people there. There are many others who have added distinction to our country's annals. These men have helped to achieve the great purposes of British colonial administration, in pressing back the frontiers of barbarism and in bringing civilisation into a larger field. These men have won the affection and the regard of the colonial peoples.
But now the transformation to Commonwealth has gone on apace. It has progressed far more rapidly than many us foresaw even a few years ago. That transformation has brought out one or two important facts. Perhaps we have not adjusted with sufficient speed the institutions and structures of government in our Colonial Territories, and perhaps, too, we have not been sufficiently diligent in seeking out and training colonial people for the tasks which independence brings to them.
The result of the coming of independence has been the tremendous anxiety felt by our own administrators and professional and technical staffs and the feeling that perhaps their own careers would suddenly come to an end and that they would be left stranded. The number of territories now reaching independence and emerging towards independence tend undoubtedly to contract the opportunities of these people.
I think that we now see in many of our territories the premature loss of men of experience and high quality whose knowledge could be of immense importance in future development. Even when independence has been reached, and in spite of the generous arrangements that have been made by a number of the independent Governments in consultation with the Colonial Office, there is still that anxiety in the hearts of these men.
I think that hon. Members of this House will recall the anxiety expressed a year or so ago by a Commonwealth Parliamentary Delegation to West Africa, led by Mr. Walter Elliot, when they expressed fears as to what might happen when the Imperial framework was withdrawn on the adoption of independence.
I should like to say in passing how all of us deplore the death of Walter Elliot. I had the privilege to serve under him on

two occasions in West Africa. He showed enormous insight into the problems which he had been asked to explore, considerable friendship to the Africans he met, and he won the regard of their heads and hearts for the quality of the work which he did. The Africans have lost a great friend, and we ourselves have lost a very wise counsellor in regard to the work in Africa.
Mr. Walter Elliot and the rest of us who were members of that delegation were alarmed by what we saw in Nigeria, in Ghana and elsewhere, with the gradual crumbling of our administrative and technical services. We had a feeling that perhaps tremendous difficulties would be experienced in those territories when independence came because of the inadequacy of their own services, the absence as yet of civil service tradition, and the immaturity and inexperience of many of those who are now being asked to carry on the administrative and technical work under independent government.
We were alarmed that so little had been done up to that point to cope with the situation that we saw arising—a situation which continues dangerous today. There are altogether far too few people carrying on. We saw in Nigeria, as well as in the Gold Coast, visible changes because of the paucity of officers available from African ranks to carry on much of the necessary work indispensable to good Government and good order in those territories.
In 1954, as the Secretary of State has reminded us, the name of the Service was changed to the Overseas Civil Service. Undoubtedly, the Government did their utmost in trying to come to terms, not only with the men but with Governments, so that adequate compensation and pensions could be paid to those who felt that they should withdraw. I must confess to some profound disappointment with what the Secretary of State has told us this afternoon in regard to the creation of the Central Register and Pool. One can appreciate the considerable difficulties and I still hope that the experiment has not been altogether abandoned. But at least it did mean that there was a register of civil servants who were prepard to go forward and carry on provided that the Secretary of State, with the local Government, could make proper arrangements on their behalf.
I can see the difficulty of guaranteeing in many cases continuous employment. We must remember that we have had to tackle somewhat similar problems before when independence has been won. On the whole, I think we have managed to absorb in one service or other those men who became redundant in Ceylon, in Palestine, in the Sudan, in India and in Burma, and one would hope that the task would not prove too formidable in the future with other territories as independence is reached. We want our remaining responsibilities in the dependent territories to be met by at least some men who have had experience in some of the territories which have reached independence. I would like to know a little more about the experience of the Colonial Office in regard to the Register and the Common Pool which it had contemplated in 1954.
In regard to the Special List, I had been under the impression—it may be a completely false one—that virtually all the Overseas Service men, the expatriate pensionable staff in Nigeria, would now go on to the Special List. I should like to know whether or not that is the case. We were informed this afternoon that that Special List will possibly extend to Malaya. Is it contemplated that further steps will be taken in regard to other territories?
I am not happy about the division which is now occurring inside the Overseas Service. On the one hand, we shall have the Special List people in Nigeria and possibly elsewhere, and at the same time we shall have alongside them another group of people who are normally Overseas Service people without the special privileges which are attached to the Special List. Therefore, I should like to know how far it is likely that this Special List can be extended and to what extent the reconsolidation of the Overseas Service can take place.
These divisions are likely to create certain difficulties—the word jealousies is a little too strong—but a certain pique as between one group of officers and another. I gather, too, that the Treasury will hold the responsibility in regard to the appointments to the Special List. I can only hope that the Treasury will be much more forthcoming than it has been in the past. It is the Treasury, I think, which has

blocked the Secretary of State in his ardent desire to get something moving for the Service in this field in order to cope with the changes brought about in the emerging territories. Therefore, I hope that the Treasury will not create difficulties for him in the days to come, when he is trying to make the Special List widely applicable.
I also hope that the Secretary of State will feel that he is reasonably free to bring in people for service in the territories overseas from the other public services. It is true that schemes have existed in regard to teachers and police. I should like to know whether this transfer or seconding from the home public service of people of experience is likely to be widely extended into fields where qualification and experience are specially called for if the service in those territories is to be efficiently carried out. I hope that the pension rights of such seconded persons will be preserved, their seniority in the staff list to which they belong will not be prejudiced, and that because of the increasing requirements for development of our overseas territories the Secretary of State may use reasonably freely this method. I should also like to be confirmed in my view that the Special List will consist not only of members of the Overseas Civil Service, the expatriate, pensionable officers already in it, but of men who may be seconded from the Home Civil Service.
There is also the very difficult problem of recruitment. All of us have been alarmed in recent years at the falling away of candidates, the fact that there has not been quite the enthusiasm among the younger people that was once experienced for this kind of service. I wonder whether it is possible now to meet that situation to some extent. I was very pleased to hear the encouraging report which the Secretary of State gave about recruitment. I wonder whether it is possible for cadets, once they are selected and appointed, to be put on the Register which was contemplated in 1954 and then transferred to the Special List for the permanent appointments which they receive. In these jobs in territories emerging to independence and in those which have become independent, there is not the glamour and prestige which existed in the days of the district officer, when he could exercise great authority in his district and was tremendously respected by the local people.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, the majority of those appointed in Nigeria were, as I pointed out, on contract. This is not a case like that of the cadet officer of the past at the start of a long career. These men were appointed on contract, and, that being so, the conditions are quite different.

Mr. Creech Jones: I must confess that I did not appreciate that a large proportion of expatriate people in Nigeria are now contract people specially appointed for special work.
The point that I am making is in regard to recruitment. I wonder whether the prestige of the work can be enhanced if the men go from the Register to the Special List.
I think all of us must agree with the pension arrangements in the Bill. They are sensible and calculated to meet some of the difficulties which the Secretary of State is experiencing. There is, however, one point that I wish to make in regard to pensions. I wonder whether it is possible for the Secretary of State to reconsider the anomalies which have arisen in respect of the pensions which are payable to Governors under the 1911 and 1947 Acts. I wonder whether the anomaly of the difference of treatment as between those Governors and the Governors coming under the 1956 Act might be removed.
It seems to me that if the earlier Governors had not risen to their high rank in the Service, these men would have been treated far more generously when they came to pension age than they are now being treated. There are only about thirty-eight such Governors, and the cost to the Treasury would be very little indeed, and it would be a decreasing cost. I hope the Secretary of State will give some further thought to the problem so that the feeling of resentment can be removed. There is a particular difficulty in that no provision whatever is made for the widows of these Governors. I hope that, in addition to the small concession which the Secretary of State was able to offer a little time ago, something much more comprehensive will be done. As I have said, there are only a few such men and the cost would be very small.
I think that all of us will welcome the Bill. We want to see recruitment speeded

up. We want to see the scheme of the Special List extended into other territories. One hopes that as a result of all this the apprehensions of the Overseas Service will diminish and it will have something of the old confidence and assurance. Those belonging to it are engaged in a great job, a job of great distinction from the point of view of the great purposes for which British Colonial policy is now conceived.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I, too, welcome the Bill, belated though its appearance has been. I also welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in paying their tributes to the work of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.
It was early in 1954 that some of my hon. Friends and one or two hon. Members opposite urged that action on these lines should be taken. From my recent tour of West Africa, I am afraid that it may be almost too late. What are the members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Nigeria thinking now? Some of them say that it may be better to join the local regional government service. Others—I am afraid there are more of them—are tempted by the extremely generous terms of compensation for loss of a career.
In some ways the compensation has been almost too generous. It is attractive today when investments have fallen. It is very difficult for most people in days of high taxation to acquire capital of any kind, and it is feared by some that unless they take their capital now and invest it the purchasing power of the £ may in a few years' time be less than it is today. There are, therefore, a number of factors influencing an overseas civil servant to take this compensation.
I wonder whether we really have considered what our object is. Is it merely to treat well a man who has served his country and his adopted country, as the terms of compensation do, or is it to make certain that the expanding Commonwealth will remain an entity? It is possible that those two objects may not coincide. It is also possible, I submit, that we may have to look again at the terms of compensation and, by means of


lengthening the period of freezing, induce civil servants, whose knowledge is of such value to territories such as Nigeria, to stay in their jobs.
There is one other item which has affected the climate of thought, and that is the action of some Governments in respect of past pensions. I can speak only about West African pensions. However, Ghana has not been as generous as has this country over retired officers. Ghana, Sierra Leone and Nigeria have not been as generous as this country and many others in the Commonwealth about widows' and orphans' pensions. It is remarkable that the poorest territory in West Africa, the Gambia, has been much more generous than some of the richer and larger territories.
I hope my right hon. Friend will remember what was said in Colonial White Paper No. 306, 1954, where it was stressed that the Colonial Service was a single service under the Crown. The fact remains, however, that that Service has not been treated as a single service and that, despite the generous treatment proposed in the Bill, many members of it feel that their colleagues in the past have not been properly looked after.
The climate, therefore, is not ideal for this Bill at the present time and yet our object must be to provide good technical aid, in which I include good administrative advice. Administrators are not all that easy to find, even in industry. From the employing Government side, action must not be taken so to alter the ideas of commercial or other morality that civil servants no longer wish to serve. Actions by other countries, not in the Commonwealth—as, for example, at Abadan or Suez or even in Indonesia—have not helped to get those in this country to give up their possible careers here for service abroad.
What should be the future of this Special List? What size ought it to be? Should it not operate, not only in Nigeria and in Malaya—I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, that discussions are taking place with Malaya—but also in the Central African Federation, and what about Singapore? Could we be told something more about that?
What Departments will be embraced in the Special List and what are the criteria by which its possible members are judged? Am I right in saying that the

purpose of the Special List is to assist Nigerian Governments to retain in their service officers whom they want to keep and who without the special safeguards might decide to leave?
Surely, if we are considering a Special List that is all-embracing, the Nigerian Governments in their own right should not have a veto on who should be recommended. I gather that applications must be recommended by the Governors and in the case of the Eastern and Western Regions by the Public Service Commissions also. That is a suitable safeguard, but I hope that it will not degenerate into a veto.
Could my right hon. Friend say, too, whether those on the Special List could be seconded anywhere? Could they go to the United Nations, to the Colonial Development Corporation or to the Trucial coast, where we have such a major interest? I hope that they can. I do not agree with some of the objections I heard in West Africa that members of the Overseas Civil Service were engaged to serve in one country and should not be sent anywhere else. The new Service should be like the Army and one should be able to be seconded wherever the interests of the Commonwealth lie.
It is somewhat difficult to comment further without knowing what percentage of the Civil Service is leaving Ghana, Malaya or Nigeria at the present time, although I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the encouraging recruitment figures. I support, however, what the right hon. Member for Wakefield has said in the hope that some of the new recruits could be put straight into the Special List. If there is a Special List and an old list, sooner or later there will be a divergence between the two types which will not be of benefit to the Commonwealth.
I regret that under the Bill the Treasury seems to have so much control. I hope that it is control over the broad size of the Special List that may become the common pool, and will not be used over actual detail to decide who should be taken on and who should be refused. If that were done, I believe that our trade—which in Nigeria is worth £250 million a year—would suffer, not only to this country's detriment but to that of the Treasury also.
Nevertheless, there is much to commend in the Bill. I hope that the seconding, whether of police, teachers or doctors—there is nothing like enough of it today—will be expedited and increased. I hope that we shall not be frightened of expanding this potential common pool and this Special List. It is, after all, an investment in the British way of life. If we find that too many are taken on, will it not be possible to employ some of them temporarily, while they are awaiting a new job overseas, in some of the Ministries of this country at present occupied by the home Civil Service?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a most encouraging Commonwealth tour, is no doubt discussing with his fellow Prime Ministers the future of this country, of the Commonwealth and of the Free Trade Area in Europe. It might well be that if we look upon this Special List in a generous spirit it could form the cement to a Western headquarters which might be instrumental in producing a prosperity for those who believe in our Western way of life such as we have never seen before. But if we allow the cement to lie in the open and disregard it, the whole concept might perish.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), because I wish to discuss some of the points he has raised. First, however, I should like to join with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in expressing our very great regret at the death of Walter Elliot. He was a great friend of many people in this House. He had a mind of such extraordinary activity that nearly every political problem was thrown up into greater interest by him. For me personally, he has enlivened even the dullest morning on the Scottish Standing Committee. He took a particular interest in the subject of colonial development.
As the Secretary of State has said, this is an enabling Bill. In so far as it will help us to do justice to those men who have worked in the Commonwealth and who, as has been said, have deserved so well, both of the countries in which they

work and of this country, I welcome it; but I share the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Wavertree about the position of some of the pensioners. They have been making representations and the hon. Member himself, I believe, has taken part in putting them before the Government. I hope that the Government will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said, that the Colonial Service is one service and that everyone in it has a right to look to the Government for reasonable pension provisions.
As to the importance not only of the Colonial Service in the past but its continuing effect upon the world, I should have thought that there could not possibly be the slightest doubt. If we look at the situation in the Far East today we see the success of India, which I should have thought was due largely to the fact that the traditions of the British Civil Service have continued there, and we have succeeded in leaving behind us a great many Indians to carry on those traditions. We can contrast that situation with the one existing in Indonesia where, for all that the Dutch did—and they did a great deal—they seem to have failed to create an Indonesian Civil Service. That is a great lesson to the Western world, and I regret that the Secretary of State has not found it possible to go further in this Bill.
As the hon. Member for Wavertree said, we are in a difficult position in that Britain has a contracting field for the Colonial Service; but the hon. Member also pointed out that there is an expanding need in the world—in the Commonwealth generally and in Asia and Africa outside the Commonwealth—for technical assistance, administrative ability, and guidance in all sorts of ways. We should now consider whether we ought not to found the kind of Commonwealth service which has often been recommended, recruited from throughout the Commonwealth, with the help of Commonwealth Governments, and available not only in the Commonwealth but also in other territories which need technical assistance. The hon. Member mentioned the Trucial Coast; Iraq is also in great need of technical assistance, and there are other possibilities in Asia, Africa, the West Indies and South America.
I do not think that we can provide immense amounts of capital for the


development of these countries, but we should be able to supply some staff, notwithstanding the fact that there is a great demand for highly-skilled people of all types in this country as well as abroad. I believe that many people would welcome the sort of work which would be open to them in these countries if they could be assured that it would be continuing work; that they would form part of a service, and would receive a reasonable pension and other emoluments at the end of their service.
I do not believe that the numbers need he so very great. We must look more and more to the training of the indigenous peoples for much of this work, but it is the top-level people who are important at the moment, and who can do such an important job. The Secretary of State seemed to indicate that there might not be such a big demand for these experts, but I would have thought that there was a considerable demand. There are all sorts of development schemes, both in the Commonwealth and outside. There is, for instance, the Colombo Plan, and Point Four. All these projects need technical staffs.
I quite understand that the difficulty lies in questions of promotion and of holding up the prospects of people, besides the terms of service. We already go a good way in the secondment of people from different Departments to do different jobs, but the Civil Service must accept a far bigger movement within itself. I understand that the Indian Civil Service already has a continual change from Department to Department—even from the Treasury to the Foreign Office. I sometimes think that that might do our Foreign Office a lot of good—and perhaps also the Treasury. I think that it is possible to have a considerably greater degree of interchange between services than exists at present. But that does not meet the demand for an overseas Commonwealth-recruited service available to serve in any country.
For people who will spend much time overseas on technical jobs it is important that there should be an opportunity to come back to this country and do a shift at home, with a certain amount of retraining in industry or the home Civil Service Departments in order to catch up with developments and new techniques. That is not impossible to arrange. It

might require a staff college at home to provide a basis for retraining, which could be carried out when jobs were not available overseas.
The essential requirement is that these people must be employees of the Commonwealth. If they are working for another Government their rights of pension and pay must be guaranteed by this Government or the Commonwealth Governments as a whole. A scheme of this sort—limited, and perhaps now in need of amendment—was put forward by Sir John Sargent, who had long experience in India and had to face the problem of heavy demands being made for technical personnel which he was unable to fulfil. I believe that the details of that scheme are to be found in the Colonial Office or in some other Government Department, and I think that it should be looked at again.
We now have a tremendous opportunity for developing the Commonwealth both as a source of recruitment and development. There are also great possibilities for under-developed countries generally. I do not know how quickly we could take the idea put forward in the Bill to its next stage, but I agree with the hon. Member for Wavertree that time is not on our side in these matters. We are losing a great many people who might be interested in this work, and creating conditions in which people will be very uneasy about accepting overseas employment. I believe that uneasiness is unnecessary; such work still offers great opportunity.
For a short time after the war I worked for U.N.R.R.A., when conditions were rather different, but we found that there was a continual request for administrators, technicians, educational experts and so forth, and that there was no sound method of recruitment. In those days we rang round to various Ministries asking for help, but although they tried to be helpful all that they usually said was, "We have old so-and-so who is out of a job just now. He might help you for a month or two." There was then nothing like the Register or the Special List that we have now, and we had very great difficulty in undertaking our very valuable work. I hope that we shall be able to develop considerably further the ideas contained rather inadequately in this Bill.
The only other point which I wish to raise concerns the position of the African Colonies and the people working there. I had not appreciated that most of the people were employed on contract.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The figures that I gave did not apply to most of the people in British territories in Africa; they concerned Nigeria. I said that many of those people were on contract.

Mr. Grimond: I presume that they would be available for transfer to the Special List if they fell within the terms of the Bill.

Mr. James Callaghan: Would they?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Each case must be examined on its merits. I cannot give an assurance that they would. They certainly would not be ineligible—but the same criteria would have to be applied to them as to anyone else. But they are recruited for specific jobs and for a period of years, and are not really comparable with administrators and other officers with whom we are concerned in order to maintain the structure of Government.

Mr. Grimond: I should have thought that the people on contract would be a valuable addition to the List. I hope the Secretary of State will say something more about this when he winds up the debate.

5.57 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I welcome the Bill and also the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he will soon be fully recovered from his accident. I support the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in regard to Governors. We discussed this matter in a previous Bill. I moved an Amendment, which was not carried, to the effect that these people should receive better pension, and especially that there should be better provision for their widows. As their number is now thirty-eight, my right hon. Friend may agree to reconsider that point.
This is a very important Bill, which will have enormous consequences in the future in binding the Commonwealth together. We must remember the work that has been done in the past and encourage more people in the belief that

they are joining a band of people who are greatly respected. For that reason I was very pleased to see, by way of a letter in The Times yesterday, signed by Lord Halifax, Lord Mountbatten, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and others, that a plaque is being put up in Westminster Abbey to commemorate the work of previous overseas civil services. The second paragraph in the letter says:
In August, 1947, Parliament passed a Resolution expressing the gratitude of the nation for the spirit which these services had shown in the discharge of their duties. From our own personal experience of their competence and high sense of responsibility we can testify how fully this tribute was justified…They were originally mainly British in their composition, but the policy of Indianisation pursued during the quarter of the century preceding 1947 tended to include in them an increasing Indian element.
We must keep that very much to the fore. Their high sense of responsibility and competence has helped, we must remember, to build up the British Commonwealth, and I am glad that their service has now been commemorated.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) who, I know, has worked extremely hard to get this Bill through the House of Commons. This idea is a practical one, and that is proved by the fact that the police have for many years been able to transfer from one service to another. When I was in Tanganyika recently I found that Malayan police were in the service of the Tanganyikan Government.
I would ask one or two questions of my right hon. Friend. The White Paper says:
There is no doubt that such developments are now essential.
That means the development of Her Majesty's Government's Overseas Civil Service. The White Paper goes on to say:
Various oversea governments have already said that they would like to be able to look to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for help in finding such officers.
I should be grateful if we could know which oversea Governments have asked for officers. If we had a list, it would encourage people to know that there were jobs for them in many territories and not only in the British Commonwealth.
I should like to know the criteria for joining this Special List. Are women to


be allowed to join it? Are Africans, Malayans, and Indians permitted to do so? If we are to bind the Commonwealth together, Indians should be allowed, for example, to go and work in Africa and Malaya and in other territories. That would be very beneficial, as I have found from experience that it is very often easier for somebody who has been trained by the British and who is not necessarily British to put over the British viewpoint to an African, even than a British person himself.
So far as I know, women can get only a certain way in this service. They can become administrative assistants, but I have never known a woman to be a district officer, for instance. What is to be the future of women in this service? Can their service be extended to several territories under this scheme? For example, many will be needed for Community Development. If so, this will be one of the most beneficial oversea developments in the future.
The White Paper says that fifty years of age is to be that of retirement, but that is a difficult age for either men or women to get other jobs. I suggest their service might be extended to sixty, when they they would not need another job, or they might retire at forty-five, at which age it would be very much easier for them to get other jobs. The amount of pension which they will receive when they finally retire is out of all proportion to what they get in a large lump sum. Many of them will be tempted to take the lump sum and retire early rather than to risk getting a pension some time in the future, and be unable to obtain further employment.
What will be the position of women government servants when they marry? I understand that most of them have to resign on marriage. In a recent Report by the United Nations Commission on the subject of Tanganyika, I read in paragraph 470:
If women government servants marry, they must resign. They can re-enter the service if they are prepared to work full-time, and if they do they are taken on a temporary basis and lose all their pension rights.
What will happen to women on the Special List? The United Nations Report ended by expressing surprise that this practice should be still in operation. I suggest that persons, even if they are in

temporary service, should have security. If they get on to the Special List, they should be allowed to count their service for pension. That is an extremely important point.
People may be just a little nervous of going over permanently to the Special List in present circumstances. Could they be allowed to do so for three to five years before they made up their minds definitely whether they wished to join it? Having worked in Malaya very happily for a very short time under the administration of a Malay, I am able to say that some people may be a little nervous of this change in their conditions, and should be allowed a period before they come to a definite decision.
What is the position of doctors and nurses? I see that teachers in Government service are mentioned but there seems to be no specific mention of doctors. I should like them to continue in the Overseas Service to gain knowledge of tropical diseases. Trying to deal with tropical diseases requires a completely different method of approach in this country from dealing with them in the tropics. The service of these doctors should be continuous, and they should be given encouragement for research work in overseas territories.
I hope that everything will be done to see that people have an assurance of security for their future. One of the dangers of this type of service is that people may be chopped and changed about too much in the different territories and different types of jobs. I should like to know that they will get definite security in a territory of which they have knowledge for as long as possible. I should also like to know whether it is proposed to take African, Malayan and other civil servants into this service on the Special List in future.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: The Secretary of State for the Colonies must be feeling happy for once, because of the welcome that has been given on all sides to the Bill. I, too, welcome the Bill, and I also welcome back the right hon. Gentleman in view of his recent illness. There were rumours in the Press at the weekend about his impending departure, but the right hon. Gentleman is back. We shall now all watch him in his evasive action for some months to come.

Mr. Callaghan: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Johnson: Having said that, I turn to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), who is a good feminist. She put up a good case for her sex. I would like the Minister to tell us where we can place these ladies when they come into the Colonial Service. Perhaps in the Co-operative movement as in Kenya—training African women coffee Co-op officers. One looks and wonders where to place ladies of ability and charm in the colonial scene. I hope that the Minister will think about this matter, because we should like to hear from him on the subject.
There are ladies in the Ministry of Labour who could do a good job in the Colonies. Women are on the move in places like West Africa. There are many women's organisations and we could send out ladies to advise them. They might do it slightly better than some male members of the I.C.F.T.U. have been doing for some years in certain parts of Africa.
Many of us have been immensely perturbed in the past year or two by the number of first-class men of integrity and ability who are leaving the Colonial Service. Why are they leaving? Some two years ago I had a long conversation about this exodus with a gentleman named Dr. Azikiwe, who, despite his vicissitudes, still manages to remain in charge of the Eastern Government of Nigeria. The Colonial Secretary said that about 284 people have gone to Nigeria in the last year, but they are not sufficient to make up the wastage in East and West Nigeria respectively. Are we to accept this position?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are more than the entitled officers, who are those entitled to go on compensation in East and West Nigeria separately.

Mr. Johnson: Are they more than the wastage of those who will be leaving us in the years to come? Dr. Azikiwe was immensely perturbed by this. Why are these people leaving?
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look beyond his speech and not to think merely in terms of service, pensions, wages and material things of that kind because it is not only a financial matter. It is perhaps a good thing that some of

them are leaving. I am certain that Africans need in Africa only people who like the continent and like the people there—people who are keen on the work itself over and above the questions of pension and pay. Some do not like serving black elected African Ministers. It would be a good thing if the generous compensation terms enabled those people to leave. In that way by financial choice they would leave and make way for others.
I have been immensely disturbed to find some in commercial circles in Africa who use such a picturesque term as "Africa is a dead duck". It is no good people talking about Africa in that way because they dislike Africanisation not only in the Civil Service but at higher levels. I hope those people will accept the terms and leave. Against this, I think there is one situation where the European can be listened to, for I met cases of nepotism in which, under the cloak of Africanisation, the European civil servant was passed over on his way to promotion by an African civil servant. There is no excuse for an African, because of his clan or family, being able to advance up the line of promotion. But all these things are happening and help to explain the exodus which is taking place.
It is said that the Africans are pushing on too fast politically and in this way disappointing and depressing Europeans who therefore do not stay. I wonder if that is always the case. When one talks to African Ministers one finds they do not want that. They know as well as we do that for many years to come Africa will need these skilled, devoted and gifted administrators. The need is there. It is a physical fact. I think I am correct in saying that in Tanganyika there are possibly no more than 250 out of a population of 8 million Africans at the School Certificate level. For many years to come they will need Europeans to guide and advise. T.A.N.U. and other African organisations know that is true. Given the pay and given the pension, I hope we shall get men to go out and serve under Ministers in Africa, whatever their colour.
A little time ago an hon. Member made a comparison, which I do not think was odious, between our colonial administration and that of the Dutch in


Java and the East Indies. If we must have empires—and we have had them in the past by historical accident—I think ours is the least bad among them. We have only to look at India, Ceylon and Ghana to see where lie the hearts of people who have left us in the Metropolitan State. It is a delicate, difficult and dangerous job to hive them off to self-government and leave our own people behind under the independent coloured Government.
I want to quote something which I think may help some people who get a little depressed by the actions of black nationalist leaders in Africa, and who say there is little hope left for some of our young men who want to work like their fathers worked twenty or forty years ago. There has been difficulty in East Nigeria, and not long ago civil servants were leaving in scores. Dr. Azikiwe sent a New Year message to "Eastern Nigeria Today", from which I wish to quote. Of all people, "Zik" has been most attacked for his Africanisation, for going too fast and squeezing out Europeans. He paid tribute to
that band 'of gallant heroes who defied the tropical climate in order to generate the social mechanism which has enabled us to bridge the gap between the days of the porters and the hammock bearers, on the one hand, and this modern era of mechanical progress on the other'".
Then he singles out the European public servant for special comment in his New Year message and said:
I must confess that at every stage in the evolution of our Public Service in Nigeria, both the expatriates and the indigenous civil servants pursued their careers with missionary zeal and a sense of duty, for which this Government must be eternally grateful…
Here I should like to repeat the assurance which I gave publicly on my return from the Constitutional Conference that we want our expatriate friends to give us the benefit of their expert knowledge to help formulate and implement our policies and we want them to work with us and not for us. It is my hope that a great number of expatriate officials will stay with us, especially during the difficult transitional period that lies ahead.
As the Colonial Secretary said, there is good will at this end and at that end for our people to go out and labour in that field where they are so badly needed.
I think it would be a great mistake to think only of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish going overseas to specific British Colonies. If one goes to East Africa one finds quite a number of New Zealanders

working in the Tanganyika public service. I should like to see many of the so-called "colonials" in our administration. Whether we like it or not—and most of us do like—it those New Zealanders and other Dominion men have a different approach from many of our people who go out there.
One hears tales in Southern Rhodesia about how well the Italians worked with the African population on the Kariba Dam scheme. One finds that New Zealanders are just as easy and acceptable when working with the African people as are the Latins. They bring a new breath of air to what many colonials feel has been a rather pompous approach. Let us widen this field and, if possible, get a Commonwealth team to work in what today is a Commonwealth effort. Really, I think it is an Atlantic Alliance effort because the amount of American money going into Africa really shames me sometimes. I would not demur if not merely New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians, but Americans went there. That would add a new whiff of energy and new life. It would give a new slant to administration in this field, which we would welcome.
I am very glad that we are going ahead on these lines, because the headaches will not only be in the West, but in East and Central Africa in the near future. On my last visit I met quite a number of people in East Africa who were asking what was to happen to them in twenty years' time. It was not only Dr. Azikiwe about whom people were worrying, but about African Congress leaders in the east and the centre. Let us look ahead in welcoming this Bill and think not merely of people indigenous to these islands, not only of English, Scots and Welsh, but particularly of New Zealanders, Australians and Americans also. They can all come in and make it a genuine Overseas Service.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. I used to be in the Colonial Service myself, and I still keep in touch with many colleagues overseas. There is no doubt that with the march of events many of them are feeling a little insecure about their future. This particularly applies to men in the thirties and forties who have heavy commitments,


who perhaps have children to educate or who are buying a house here. They are concerned, and I believe that the provisions of the Bill will give them some reassurance.
So far, most of the uncertainty has been confined to territories which are on the threshold of complete independence, but it is permeating through the Service. It is my belief that in areas which have reached full independence the abolition terms have, on the whole, been generous and have not caused hardship, and I believe that in other areas which are to become independent the terms will be no less favourable. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind human nature. There is always before us the melancholy situation of British officials who served in Egypt.
I have three questions which I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would investigate. The first concerns pensions. In the old Colonial Service the pensions rule did not work at all fairly. In a wealthy colony or one with a high standard of living, such as Malaya or Hong Kong, an officer was paid more highly, and his pension was based not only on the length of his service, but primarily on his emoluments during his last three years of service. This meant that he received a very much higher pension than an officer of equivalent grade in East Africa or Aden. It seems to me that under these new arrangements, with the Special List and the Central Pool, officers appointed in the future should all have exactly the same conditions and that arrangements should be made by my right hon. Friend and his advisers to see that at the end of the day they all draw exactly the same pension.
The same difficulty arose when officers were on leave. An officer from, perhaps, West Africa or the West Indies who was on a fairly low scale of pay had only that small amount of money to spend in the United Kingdom when he came home; he was paid the same amount as he was receiving in the West Indies. On the other hand, an officer in exactly the same grade who was serving in Malaya, for example, received two or three times that amount of pay and when he came home on leave he had two or three times the amount to spend than had his colleagues from the West Indies or, for

example, from Aden. There is scope for all these matters to be ironed out in these new arrangements.
The second point I wish to make is about the composition of the Special List and the Central Pool. In my opinion, the list should not be confined to officers from this country. In my service I knew many from India, Pakistan and elsewhere who were very sound officers. We should retain them and recruit more from those Dominions. I also agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that we should recruit officers from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We should make our needs known to those Dominions in order that we can get all these officers into the Central Pool and make it a Commonwealth service serving the Commonwealth.
The third point concerns the name. In the old days men in the Colonial Service were very proud to serve in it and to give a lead to local peoples. It was a good life's work helping these people among whom our fellow countrymen went out to live. Regrettably, the word "colonial" now has an unfortunate meaning. This is quite wrong, but it has acquired this meaning largely through misunderstanding, I think, primarily, on the part of foreigners.
We had to change this. The name has been changed to the Overseas Civil Service. In my view that is a very bad choice. It is rather nebulous. I think it would be difficult to owe loyalty to a service with such a name. Secondly, the name is a tongue twister; it is, in fact, a hissing and an abomination. I ask my right hon. Friend to think about a change of name, and I suggest that the name should be Her Majesty's Commonwealth Service.

6.26 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: We have waited a long time for this Bill. We are glad to have it at last, but I think that the Secretary of State has already realised that those of us on both sides of the House who are interested in the subject are somewhat disappointed in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is an enabling Bill, but I have looked at it with apprehension because in some respects it seems to be a disabling Bill.


The hand of the Treasury is all too evident in it. I very much hope that in Committee we shall be able to delete Clause 1 (3) because it appears to me that the Treasury is taking upon itself not merely general supervision, as it naturally must in such a matter, but also particular supervision, with the result that it may interfere even in the appointment of an individual officer. That seems to me to be monstrous. I stand to be corrected, because I am not familiar with the terms of service of the Foreign Service, but I very much doubt whether the Treasury possesses, and certainly whether it exercises, that power in Her Majesty's Foreign Service. Why should the Overseas Service be any less independent?
Just how much or how little the Secretary of State is ultimately able to perform under the Bill seems to depend very much upon his relationship for the time being with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, whoever he may be. That, therefore, limits the potential usefulness of the Bill. We are asked to pass legislation which will depend very much indeed upon the power relationship within the Government hierarchy at any particular point in time.
Provided that the Treasury were much more generously minded than the Treasury usually is, the Bill could be interpreted in a very wide way. Just how wide it could be interpreted I am not clear, and I should be grateful if in his reply the Minister would make clear to us exactly what the scope of the Overseas Service is intended to be.
The Bill refers throughout to "the Secretary of State". That, I presume, could mean any Secretary of State, and would cover both the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and also the Foreign Secretary, if suitable. Clause 6 defines "overseas territory" as
…any territory or country outside the United Kingdom;
That means, therefore, that it is not confined to the Commonwealth. It is a very interesting point but we should like to have it developed, as, in presenting the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman made no reference to such possibilities. As the Bill could concern persons whose service was related either to the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, or the Foreign Office we really should have

a more adequate explanation of what machinery could be used.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed by the response to the Central Pool, but he has not really told us what efforts, what experiments, have been made, or in what direction or in what relation to these other Departments they have been made. Those of us who had in mind something much more exciting than what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have in mind in relation to Commonwealth service are entitled to a great deal more explanation of why he is now so pessimistic.
Is it purely the dead hand of the Treasury, or what are the real reasons that, apparently, make it so difficult to envisage an overseas service of a kind to which almost every previous hon. Member who has spoken has referred? They have referred to something that is not just a holding operation in, say, Nigeria—important as that might be—but something creative and positive, which will contribute to the Commonwealth and give us the kind of advantage which will, in many countries, be our only one. It is the sort of relationship that we may get through administration, university education and highly skilled technical co-operation, and the like, on which our influence in the Commonwealth is likely so largely to depend.
The right hon. Gentleman said that among other reasons for despondency was the fact that those who seem to be interested in the Central Pool were largely the older men who had, in fact, retired, but who were prepared to take on a short-term job of a particular kind. He said that there was difficulty in attracting any of the younger people to the pool. Why is that? Is it because the kind of employment offered does not attract them? This idea that everyone should be on contract is not very satisfactory.
I am particularly concerned about the younger administrative officers who are, as we know, in a peculiar position. It is known that when a country gets to near-self-government or to full self-government, it is the administrative rather than the highly technical people who are likely to be dispensed with, but it is of the utmost importance that, whilst in the Service, they should be of good quality. That applies equally to East Africa or to Central Africa, where self-government may not


be approached for many years but where there will in the future be a gradual but increasing supplanting of officers of European origin by educated Africans. We would like to know just what are the difficulties in attracting younger people.
If one of the problems of this conception of having a much more dynamic Overseas Service than it seems we are likely to have is the difficulty of guaranteeing continuous employment, I wonder whether one could interpret fairly widely the reference in Clause 1 (8) to "other employment"? I can envisage certain circumstances in which it might be desirable for the Secretary of State to say to some officer, "At the moment we really have no suitable job for you in the public service, in the narrow sense, either here or overseas, but you might do some extremely useful work in other approved employment in the academic field, or even, in certain circumstances, in the commercial field."
Is that the kind of idea behind that reference to "other employment"? We want to do everything possible to make this overseas service attractive to our high quality younger people. They have to feel that they have the chance of a really satisfying service. It is not just a matter of pay or pension, important as that may be. It is also the idea that thought will be given to the best way of employing their talents at any particular time.
There is another very serious criticism, and this was touched on by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison), who has his own personal experience in the Colonial Service. Many of us have thought that if we were to have a Bill of this kind at all an opportunity should be taken to deal with the situation which has existed for so long, for historic reasons, in the Colonial Service, whereby someone serves in a territory at the rate of pay and conditions of service that the territory can afford. That means that when he sees an opportunity for promotion, such an officer, very naturally, leaves that territory and goes where he thinks he may be better off.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) said that during his term of office some effort was made to assist the smaller and poorer territories to obtain specialist services

which otherwise they might not have been able to secure. As I understood him, however, that applied only to certain special jobs and not to the ordinary run of the administrative service. For example, as I have mentioned before, when I was in Zanzibar not very long ago, one complaint, among many, was that they had had, I think, seven directors of education in ten years—

Mr. Ede: They have had more than seven in ten years here.

Mrs. White: That may be so in certain authorities with which my right hon. Friend may be associated. It is very disturbing for some of these territories to realise that they are just jumping-off grounds for persons with their eyes on better paid jobs elsewhere. One therefore hopes that it may be possible so to interpret the Bill as to overcome this difficulty. It should be possible for a man to be sent where he will be most useful; that his own personal pay, pension rights, and so on, should be safeguarded as personal to him, and that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should make suitable financial arrangements with the other Government and, if necessary, make up the difference between what the receiving-end Government can pay and what the officer is entitled to receive. Were that done, we would have fewer of these changes, which can be so very disturbing to the countries concerned, and fewer unsuitable appointments, which are sometimes made, even at the rank of Governor, simply to enable a person to obtain promotion which otherwise he would not have had.
Whether or not this is a good or a bad Bill will really depend very much on how it is interpreted. I can only say that we were rather disappointed at the pessimistic interpretation that the Secretary of State seems to be placing on it at the moment. I hope that the trend of this debate will have convinced him that there are those of us on both sides who would like him to show a very much more positive and creative attitude to the overseas service than he seems to have at present.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are four backers to this Bill, of whom three are present. But one important backer is not here, and that is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We are all conscious in this


debate of what a large part the Treasury plays in the Bill. Indeed, the Financial Secretary is to move a Money Resolution in relation to it when the Bill has secured its Second Reading. The Treasury plays a large part, and various things cannot he done without its consent. I wonder if it would be possible for a Government Whip to see if the Financial Secretary can be present, because I am sure that it will help with his education if he can hear what is being said on both sides of the House.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: It is always a pleasure to agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and today I find myself agreeing with almost everything she said about this subject. The hon. Lady said at one stage that far from this Bill being an enabling Measure it looked rather like a disabling one. I am not so sure that I could follow her that far, but I must express my conviction that this Bill seems to enable the Secretary of State to do very little, to do very little too late.
Tributes were rightly paid by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) to the men of the Overseas Service. I cannot think of any more devoted and dedicated body in the whole of the Commonwealth than the men who devote their lives to the service of the less well-equipped, less advanced and less sophisticated peoples of our great family of nations. Theirs is a service which brings its own satisfaction, but it is not an easy job and it is not an easy life. I said "Hear, hear" rather loudly when my right hon. Friend said that this House owes a debt to the men of the Overseas Service. That being so, I think that the Measure we now have before us is quite inadequate to meet the need.
I remember how some of us were disappointed when in 1954, after much prodding on the part of some of my right hon. Friends, the White Paper appeared. If we are so concerned about the future of this Service, we should pay some regard to the feelings and susceptibilities of the men engaged in it. It was well-known in 1954 that there was a growing feeling of dissatisfaction in the Service. It was because these men were devoted and loyal and were the right stuff that they kept

their grumbles very largely to themselves. That was in 1954 and this Bill has only just appeared.
I should like to know—and this is the first of the questions I want to ask—why there has been this long delay. The right hon. Member for Wakefield talked about the contraction of opportunity, and other speakers in the debate have implied that part of the trouble is that the men already employed in the Service know that it is virtually dying on its feet. Is this correct? If it is not, it may be leading us to false conclusions.
I remember some years ago conducting a survey into the prospects of the Colonial Service, and I came to some very interesting conclusions. We are faced here with a dilemma. On the one hand, with the political ties between the Colonial Dependencies and the mother country weakening, with more and more of these territories moving towards self-government and mastery over their own affairs, administrative changes in the colonies and in this country in the Colonial Office are inevitable, and these are bound to lead to anxiety among those serving and also those who, in normal circumstances, would be attracted to join them.
I remember when in East Africa in 1954 being told by one promising young district officer that he felt like looking over his shoulder all the time at the men who had served in the Sudan and those in that incomparable Civil Service, the Indian Civil Service, and who were now elsewhere. These anxieties were natural, and inevitable, but it is clear that if, as a result of these anxieties getting a grip, the Service is allowed to run down, the consequences to the whole of the Commonwealth and ourselves would be tragic.
The fact of the matter is that political advance in all these territories which have achieved or are about to achieve independence has far outstripped their administrative capacity. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) quite properly quoted Dr. Azikiwe and other political leaders, who have in the last few years made it absolutely clear that they want British administrative assistance to continue and on terms satisfactory to the men concerned. They recognise that the kind of disinterested advice and expertise


which these men can provide are absolutely essential if their young democracies are to find their feet, master their environment and develop their resources.
So we have a situation in which the demand for good men from the United Kingdom is not diminishing, but is increasing. I allow at once that where administrative officers are concerned, particularly the senior ones, opportunities of the right kind are contracting, but, since I made my survey, which was three years ago, I believe that the picture has not altered. In fact, if anything, a new emphasis has been given to my conclusions.
In the first eight years after the war, three times as many forestry and legal officers were required as in the eight years immediately previous to the war, four times as many administrative officers and medical officers, seven times as many veterinary officers, twelve times as many surveyors and geologists, and twenty-six times as many educational officers. The reason for this is quite clear. Economic, social and political development is quickening all the time in the Colonial Empire, and the demand for expertise increases accordingly. What I am driving at—and I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here to hear this—is that colonial development is not just a matter of finding money. It is not just a matter of providing capital goods. It is, first and foremost, a matter of finding the right kind of men with the right kind of knowledge to guide, train and to enthuse the colonial cadres who will take over in the end.
I was most interested when my right hon. Friend gave some figures of the recruitment to the Colonial Service in the last two years, but I should have liked to have been given another figure, and perhaps my right hon. Friend, when he replies, may be able to give it. My information is that the demand has been so great in recent years that there is quite a considerable lag between the vacancies being notified to the Colonial Office and the appointments being made. I should like to know whether that lag is disappearing, and whether the number of young cadets is increasing. In short, the conclusion which one reaches is that at a time when anxiety is getting keen and when a number of the senior men in the

Overseas Civil Service are thinking in terms of taking their compensation and getting out, the field of opportunity, far from contracting, is widening, except, as I have said, in the administrative service.
As a result of this dilemma, we are faced with two related problems; first, how are we to provide continuity of employment and good prospects of advancement for those men already in the Service; and, secondly, how are we to ensure recruitment? One administrative officer in the West Indies told me a few years ago: "Remember, the chief source of recruitment to the Service are those already in it." Just as a doctor very often hopes that his son will follow him in his noble profession, so the colonial administrator hopes that his son will find happiness and a vocation in the Service. Unfortunately, in the last two years a number have been saying "I hope my son will not follow me, because the prospects are no longer bright."
In the past, colonial servants did not belong to a single unified service working to the same set of rules and answerable to the same master. It is true that they were recruited by the Colonial Office, and they were selected by the Secretary of State and many of them were appointed directly by him. But they were employed by colonial Governments and once appointed they were the servants of those Governments and of no other. As many hon. Members have said, the terms and conditions of service varied widely.
Is it not now the position that the Secretary of State has less and less control over appointments and that more and more the public service commissions are making them instead? I am convinced that there is no way out of the difficulty except by providing a single unified service with pay and pensions underwritten by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, although increasing discretion will have to be left to the local public service commissions and to the Governors to make the actual appointments.
I can see no reason even now why the re-employment of officers made redundant through no fault of their own but through political or administrative changes in these colonies should be left to chance or good will or to the whim of the Treasury. How are we to attract into the Service men whose intellectual quality and


character is such that they could find a niche almost anywhere else in these days of full employment? How are we to keep them in the Service unless we guarantee that once redundancy occurs their future will not be left to chance? Indeed, redundancy often occurs because a man has done his job well and has hastened the day of self-government.
I should like to know why there should be two categories, one being those on the Special List. Why should there be two kinds of colonial civil servant? What is the reason? We have not yet been given an explanation. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us that there are technical or financial reasons, or that the Treasury insists that the Special List should cover only a small, narrow, exceptional category of men in order to save money. If that is the truth, let us be told so.
The 1954 White Paper fell far short of what was required. It did not allay anxiety about prospects and pensions at the time. I do not see why the pensions for the whole Service should not be funded and located in the United Kingdom. The Bill, I readily allow, moves in the right direction, but it moves timidly and half-heartedly and is manifestly the product of a titanic struggle between the Colonial Office and the Treasury.
I should like to know how many officers in West Africa have thrown in their hand during the three years which have elapsed since the White Paper. I should like to know too how many officers in the Eastern and Western regions of Nigeria have taken their compensation. I should also like to know what has become of them. Have they sought similar service elsewhere, or have industry and commerce gained them?
The other day a young, brilliant administrative officer serving in one of the key territories of the colonial empire came to see me. He told me of his fears and doubts. If he stuck to his post, which was a senior one, there was the chance that a glittering prize lay ahead. He was not particularly concerned about that. He liked the job, and he had done a good job. He had helped in a territory where there has been a very rapid transformation, and he felt that he had made some contribution to it. He was young and married and had children, and he had to think of the future. He had had attractive offers from business houses. He wondered what he should do. I could have

shown him the Bill, but I doubt whether he would have obtained much encouragement from it. I do not know what he will do, but I do know what large numbers of other officers of similar age and distinction have already done. They have taken their compensation and gone.
I should like to know also why the Special List is limited to Nigeria. We have had nearly three years to think about this. There are other territories in which serving officers are filled with doubt and apprehension. We have been told today that there is a possibility of a similar list being negotiated with the Governments of Malaya and Ghana. I am glad to hear it. I should like to know when the negotiations opened and how long they will take to complete.
I should like to know whether the proposal will be limited to Malaya and Ghana. What about the Caribbean territories and some of the remote islands about which people hardly ever hear but where men are doing a fine job? Why should the matter be dealt with in piecemeal fashion? Why should we select one area and then go on to another? The men in the Service, certainly all the specialists except language experts, should be capable of being moved from one territory to another as need arises. Why cannot we treat this as a unified Service in which every man entering knows he has equality of opportunity and prospects with his fellows?
Is the Treasury responsible for the niggling treatment? What is the meaning of Clause 1 (2) and (3)? I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East. Why should the Treasury determine the conditions under which these officers are appointed? There is also the matter of Clause 1 (6). It seems to me that the Secretary of State has extraordinarily wide powers to terminate appointments. If that provision is read with Clause 2 (4) it seems to me that he can do what he likes in respect of these appointments subject to not being challenged in Parliament.
I am not sure that these provisions are likely to inspire confidence among the members of the Overseas Service. I have with me a letter from a very distinguished ex-Colonial Secretary. He asks me the question which I have just asked. He writes:
What does Section 2 (4) mean? As a layman, I can only read it to the effect that the


Secretary of State can do anything he likes with an official pension. How encouraging!
I will not read the rest of the letter because it is, perhaps, unnecessarily harsh.
If these provisions were linked with an intelligent system of interchange with the home Civil Service, well and good, but we have had no evidence that this is intended. If it is intended, I hope my hon. Friend will give the House some information.
In short, as one who has had the proud privilege of being able to visit a very large number of Colonial territories during the last decade and has been struck by what he has seen of the devotion and hard work shown by the Colonial Service everywhere, I must register my acute disappointment that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to tackle the problem more boldly and with greater imagination and generosity. The Secretary of State, quite rightly, paid a great tribute to the men of the Service and said that the House owed a debt to them. I should have thought that this is one of the very few issues which cannot be judged on grounds of immediate expense. Clearly, we are moving into—indeed, we are already in—a phase of difficult and delicate relations with the peoples of the colonial empire. We cannot afford not to have the best men guiding, training and inspiring the colonial peoples.
Enemies of our way of life in the world are to be found everywhere. There is plenty of cynicism, plenty of uncertainty and doubt, plenty of fear. The colonial civil servant is much more than an ambassador for this country. He is forging the links in a chain of understanding, trust and friendship which alone can ensure that the Commonwealth, of which Briain is only a part, can endure. On the quality of their leadership, on the example they set and the confidence they inspire, will depend whether the new self-governing States of the Commonwealth decide to stay within the family circle. On those grounds alone—there is no need to advance any other—I should have thought that they were entitled to a better deal than they are receiving now.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I did, some twenty minutes ago, raise the question of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury being here. We have a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury here. Can

he tell us whether the Financial Secretary will attend the debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, will you allow me to move a Motion, "That the debate be now adjourned"?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a Motion I can accept. The Ministers who are present can answer for the Treasury.

Mr. Callaghan: We have a Motion to be moved later on—I trust I am being perfectly courteous in this matter, Mr. Speaker, though I am not at all sure how far the Treasury is being courteous to the House—which is directly related to the Bill; it is, in fact, the Money Resolution. A great many strictures are being made this evening about the attitude of the Treasury, and it is surely reasonable to suggest that we should have a Treasury Minister here in order that he may know what our attitude is, and, indeed, what is the attitude of the House in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: These are not concerns of mine, and they are not points of order in any way. It is not a matter in which I have any power to interfere, and the debate must go on. We are dealing now with the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: But, Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons which would lead me to submit to you that it would be reasonable to move the adjournment of the debate. What has in fact happened?

Mr. Speaker: I could not accept such a Motion. Mr. Hector Hughes.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I disagree profoundly with the pessimistic tone of the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). He made a number of niggling points, which seemed to me to be points much better dealt with in Committee than on Second Reading. As I understand the procedure on Second Reading, it is to consider the principle of the Bill. In my submission, the Secretary of State has made a good case for the principle of the Bill in general, though I have certain objections to it in detail.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East, criticised the Bill for being too little and too late. That is the kind of cheap criticism which could be made of any Bill at any time. It seems to me that our function is to consider the principle of the Bill, and then, in Committee, when the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his small points, to consider whether the Bill can be improved. It is our task to make the Bill as good a Bill as possible.
I hope that the reservations I have in welcoming the Bill will not recoil upon me as being Committee points. Briefly, I consider that the Bill should be tightened up in certain ways. There are certain terms in it which merit definition yet which are not to be found in the definition Clause. Discretions are given too widely throughout the Bill, particularly to the Treasury, and it seems to me that the Treasury will in course of time be in conflict with the Secretary of State. The powers which are given are not in all cases clearly defined, and it seems to me that some of the looseness in the Bill will make for difficulty in administration.
The general principle of the Bill is good. It attempts to solve some of the essential problems in a very practical way. There is no doubt that legislation in this matter is much needed and, although it may be that the need has existed for some time, that is no reason for discarding a Bill which makes a reasonable and practical attempt at a solution.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have had the opportunity—I say it humbly—of visiting some of the Colonies, and I know some of the problems involved. I do not profess to know—like some hon. Members who have spoken—what all the problems are, nor do I profess to know all the solutions, though I know of some of them. In the places I visited, I had conversations with officers in Her Majesty's Colonial Service and with others not in the Service, who could, perhaps, take a more objective view. It seems to me that the Colonial Service is doing excellent work. The question which the House has to consider is, will it continue? Will the Bill help it to continue? Does the Bill do enough? It is easy to say of any Bill that it does not do enough, but at least the one now

before us takes a step in the right direction. It confronts in its own way the essential, urgent current problems which await solution.
I shall put four of those problems as tersely and briefly as I can. The first is the problem presented by the rapid diminution in the number of trained and experienced officers in the public service in the Colonies. The second is the failure of the present attempts to retain expatriate British civil servants in their respective offices. The third is the counter-attraction which the British Government strangely and inconsistently offers them to retire prematurely a—very serious matter which must be tackled, and which, in my opinion, the Bill makes some attempt to tackle. Fourth is the insufficient number of trained, indigenous civil servants available and coming forward, efficiently to take the place of those who are retiring.
Those problems have a number of causes, of which I shall mention only two, which are related. The latest and short-term cause is that the existing officers have been given the right to retire with the pensions they have earned plus a lump sum for compensation. To this privilege they have become entitled in Nigeria, as has been mentioned, owing to the change of masters, as it is called, on transition from colonial status to the higher status of self-government. The Colonial Secretary took the view—I think quite correctly—that he could no longer guarantee their terms of service. Because of this, it is estimated that about 25 per cent. of the expatriate civil servants have opted to retire, and it is estimated that in about two years' time very few expatriate British civil servants will remain. That is the kind of problem the Bill is designed to tackle.
One cannot blame the civil servants for so succumbing to the inducement which the British Government—not only the present Government, but past Governments—have offered to them to retire prematurely from their posts, in that way reducing the numbers of the British civil servants in those posts. Their reasons are many and are almost coercive, particularly having regard to the present high cost of living. One is the attractive lump sum, which, at a time when the cost of living is high, makes it practically impossible for civil servants with


family responsibilities to do other than retire. Another reason is the uncertain conditions of service under new Governments, conditions which may not be as attractive as those enjoyed at present. A third reason is that under the new régime the rates of pay and superannuation may fall if these civil servants stay on.
A fourth and very important reason is that these civil servants are attracted to leave the service because they want to get into industry and commerce before the men who are now being turned out of the Forces. There will be great competition in trade, industry and commerce, and those civil servants who retire prematurely and at a comparatively young age must look to the future and consider what competition there will be when they retire.
This almost spectacular diminution of expatriate British civil servants in the Colonies would not be serious if new men were coming forward to take their places, but they are not coming on with sufficient celerity to enable trained personnel to be put into all the places which are being vacated by those who are retiring.
That brings me to the other aspect of the cause of this diminution in the expert Civil Service in the Colonies. I have mentioned the recent and short-term cause. I now mention the older and long-term one. In my submission, past British Governments have not done their duty to our Colonies in this way. They should have foreseen the time when, in the march of events, those Colonies would achieve higher constitutional status and would need to man their own Civil Service. They did not take time by the forelock, and they did not educate the indigenous races as they should have done. If they had done that, the men—in the case of Nigeria, the Nigerians—would be coming forward now in sufficient numbers to fill the places which are being vacated. But past British Governments neglected their duty in that way, and they have only themselves to blame for the shortage of indigenous manpower that is arising.
What is meant by the term "officer" in the Bill? Who is an officer? The Bill does not define the word. Is "officer" to include a military officer as well as a Civil Service officer? I have

a case at present—I shall not mention the name or the area from which it comes—of a thoroughly expert, highly-educated civil servant who is now in a Colony. He has been given a high-up job under a superior officer who has no knowledge of the requisite technique and there is chaos in the office and trouble between them. That is the kind of thing that might ensue if "officer" is to mean other than a Civil Service officer. Before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, the term "officer" should be so defined as to ensure that incompetent persons are not given authority.
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Who are the officers to be appointed? How is their fitness to be tested? What must be their qualifications for appointment, and what is meant by the words
arrangements…with Governments of overseas territories
in Clause 1? Subsection (2) seems to me to give a veto to the Treasury as against the Secretary of State. If that is so, it may cause difficulty in administration. To me, these are important questions. The testing and the qualifications are important matters, not only to the Colonies but, indirectly and in the long run, to the solidarity of the Commonwealth of Nations. Unless these Colonial Territories when they achieve higher constitutional status are properly administered, and by their own men, the solidarity of the Commonwealth of Nations may indirectly, or perhaps, directly, be affected. On the whole, this is a good Bill, but it has certain defects which I hope will be cured in Committee. I hope that it will reach the Statute book and achieve the aim that it has in view.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I should like to add a word of assessment and appreciation of the Bill as I have served in the Colonial Service and as it touches upon the most vital and important issue in this vital and important age in which we live. It seems to me that the fundamental object of the Bill is to ensure the continuity of the British Imperial mission. I think that when history comes to judge us it will say that our British Imperial mission was the most significant contribution that we have made to the advancement of mankind.
The immediate object of the Bill, as I see it, is to ensure that those who carry on the mission shall have their careers continuable in the immediate future. It is proposed to achieve that object by securing for certain of them—not all of them—that the debt of honour which Her Majesty's Government owe to them will be fulfilled. We owe them a debt of honour because they have been selected by the Secretary of State and they are subject to his Regulations. It is our duty to see that they are not let down in mid-career while we stand impotently by. If they are rather anxious about this, one cannot wonder. They may be wondering about what happened to the British employees of the Egyptian. Government who were let down so shamefully while we stood by quite unable to help them.
I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to say a word or two with special reference to the Bill about the Imperial mission of this country—I make no apology whatever for using the phrase—and to those who carry it out, with a special reference to the administrative service. As to the mission, we have completed the first and, perhaps, the easiest part of it, which we might call the Lugard era, of maintaining law and order and establishing sound administration.
We are now, however, entering a far more tricky period. We must nurse to maturity and responsibility the fierce and elemental nationalism which our own policy has created. We have to cherish the humane and civilised standards of behaviour and forms of government with which we have endowed the Colonies and we have to guide the economic development that we have started. To do these things in the atmosphere which we have created, we must have men of character, vision and infinite patience. It is the most important thing that we have to do for the world and it calls for the very best men that our country can produce.
Those who have served have a splendid and honourable record, but I am particularly concerned with those whose jobs are yet to be done. Those are the men that this Bill is about. In the 1954 debate on the organisation of the Overseas Civil Service, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), whom I am glad now to see in his place on the Front Bench as Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth

Relations, who had the singular good fortune to win the ballot for Private Members' Motions on two Fridays running, we discussed the question and I ventured to say that the morale of the Colonial Service was very low and that the Service itself was quite chaotic. I hope that the Bill will take steps to arrest the decline in morale and improve the outlook for those in the Service.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend especially about the recruitment of young cadets just embarking on their careers. I have heard it said that we are asking too much of them, and that we are asking for an act of faith and sacrifice that is not fair. Looking at Colonial Paper 306, which was published four years ago, we could not blame a young officer if he were to say, "This gives me nothing certain to look forward to." If we look at Regulation 5 in the Appendix, we find that it says:
A serving Member of Her Majesty's Over-sea Civil Service, while having no claim to employment otherwise than in the office which he has been offered and has accepted, shall be eligible for consideration by the Secretary of State for employment in any post which he may be requested or authorised to fulfil.
In other words, the young officer says to himself, "If a nationalist government kicks me out, I am on the garbage heap at 45 and have no redress". That is not the basis on which we should ask young men to build their life's work. I hope that the Bill, developing a hint in Colonial Paper 306, puts some heart into these men who are contemplating entering what will be an enormously responsible Service. The gist of the Bill is that we shall say to these young cadets, "Do not worry because, in the last resort, if the Government have made a Special List agreement with the Government of the Colony in which you will serve, you will then be the United Kingdom's 'baby' and the Government, if you are transferred to the Special List, will guarantee your pension and take you on the payroll until you are 50, and, if you are sacked unfairly, will try to find you another job."
I am not certain that this is all we ought to offer to officers in these circumstances, because if we look at Cmd. Paper 9768, published in May, 1956, on which this Bill is based, paragraph 7 (iv) reads:
Officers transferred to the Special List will accept an obligation to serve Her Majesty's


Government in the United Kingdom up to the age of 50 in any post to which they may be assigned from time to time.
I think it might well occur to junior officers who are about to embark on their careers that this offers them very much less choice than they might have had if they had remained in the Colonial Service in the circumstances which prevailed before the war. I am not sure that this is an attractive proposition for them.
Secondly, I feel that it is open to doubt as to who decides whether an officer is to be transferred to the Special List or not. It appears, on the face of the Bill, that this is subject to Treasury veto. It is written into the Bill, and the Treasury could say, "We will not accept this man," or "We will not accept this group of men". I should have thought that not enough security is given to an officer entering the Service.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that the Special List ought to embrace all officers in the Overseas Service. I do not think that that criticism is quite fair. I do not see how it could be done, because the Special List only has any meaning by virtue of a Special List agreement which has to be negotiated with a competent Government. Such Governments are not everywhere in existence. A young officer going into the Tanganyika Service, for example, could not ask to be put on the Special List because the Tanganyika Government are not in a position to negotiate a Special List agreement with the Government. The suggestion that is made is unrealistic, and I think that the Secretary of State has been unfairly criticised.
I think that we are still asking a very great deal of young men in their second and third years at universities who are thinking of entering the Overseas Service. I hope that this last-ditch guarantee in the Bill will give them enough certainty of outlook to enable my right hon. Friend to recruit the men whom we need. I would like a definite assurance that he is seeking the men of the right calibre and that it is his prime objective to obtain them by this Bill and will sympathetically consider Amendments designed to that end.
It would be of great interest to the House if he could let us know how many vacancies there are in the administrative branch of the Service in various Colonies.

He told us that recruiting was improving, but he did not indicate to what extent the supply was satisfying the demand. I do not think we can emphasise too strongly the importance to the Service of obtaining young men of the coming generation, because they have grown up in a world in which nationalism exists.
Nationalism is the creed and faith of the Africans who are the men they will have to work and deal with in the territories to which they are appointed. Nationalism is a part of their world and they understand it. At Oxford and Cambridge and other universities they meet the young men of the Africa of tomorrow. They have an insight into and a sympathy with their passions and their dreams in a way which the old hands can never have, because it was not a part of their world. These men have a decisive part to play in the world, and we in this House must do everything we can to ensure that they are forthcoming from this country to play it.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: There are one or two observations I should like to make on the Bill. First of all, I welcome the principle underlying it. The Bill may be rather belated, but I think its principle demands the support of both sides of the House.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he complained about the absence of any representative from the Treasury, because I am sure the Colonial Secretary will agree with me that he is merely an instrument of policy and that decision lies with the Treasury and that without the Treasury this Bill would not exist. I should like to support my hon. Friend in his plea to the Colonial Secretary that, as a matter of prestige, he ought to instruct one of his officers to call at the Treasury so that the Financial Secretary can be brought here and we may put questions to him.
I have been through this Bill very carefully. I should like to know exactly how the salaries and conditions of service are to be determined. For example, I should like to ask whether the salaries and conditions of service will be basically those which operate in this country. Or are they to be the subject of a negotiated arrangement between the home Government and the colonial or local territory


to which these officers may be posted? If so, I should like to know what will be the machinery of review. Who will be the authority to determine any revision of salaries, conditions of service or pensions? Will it be the Treasury of this country? I think that is a fair point, because to anyone who launches out into a career and has to consider various claims upon his desires in relation to his future, one of the basic factors is, "What kind of salary will I receive? What are the prospects of promotion? What will be the means by which I can get my salary adjusted in accordance with any change in the economic circumstances with which I might be faced?" Therefore, I would say to the Colonial Secretary that this is a moot point. It is not clear to me how the salaries and conditions of service are to be determined, how they are to be reviewed and regulated. Who will be the authority for that?
I agreed with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) when he referred to Clause 2 (4), which deals with superannuation rights. The one thing about pension rights to which anyone is entitled is whether there is any certainty about them. He wants to know if there is anything in his contract of service affecting his contributions, or, in a non-contributory scheme, as here, whether and how it affects any or all of his conditions of service, such as pensionable service. He wants to know whether there is any security of his pension rights yet. This subsection says nakedly:
Any order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order there-under.
I think the Colonial Secretary would be advised to explain it. Such a decisively worded provision must have a purpose. I can understand it in relation to salaries, but I cannot understand it in relation to pension rights.
I come now to what may be a Committee point, but I must put it to the Colonial Secretary. I refer to paragraph 5 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. It says:
Under the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945, a member of a home police force can be allowed to engage in police service overseas, with a statutory right to revert to his former rank in his home police force at the end of his police service overseas.
I should have thought any police officer seconded abroad and having served a

period of years there, and having done his duty with merit, would have experienced some promotion. Would it not be advisable, to encourage such overseas service, to offer something a little better than reversion to his original rank, the rank the officer had when he went overseas? Would it not be advisable to make provision to ensure that when an officer returns to home duty from overseas he returns to a comparable rank at a comparable salary? This provision as set out with such pride in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, that an officer, if he returns, will be assured of the rank he filled when he took overseas service, is really rather discouraging, and it wants some explanation.
However, I think this Bill is a step in the right direction. Anyone who has followed the correspondence in The Times and the Manchester Guardian during the last few years will agree that the Colonial Territories which are emerging as self-governing territories, including those which have achieved self-government, are most anxious to secure the services of competent British personnel to carry on the administrative and technical work involved in government. I hope the Bill will be followed by wider measures so involving agreement between the Government in the United Kingdom and the colonial and local Governments to ensure reciprocal arrangements, to encourage the flow of expert personnel, such as nurses, doctors, teachers, technicians and so on, between the Colonial Territories and Britain, so that the work we have done in the past, in India and in the other countries which have been referred to in this debate, may be continued to the benefit of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and in such a way as to redound continuously to our credit and helpfully to the territories which are emerging as self-governing and independent.

7.36 p.m.

Colonel Tufton Beamish: I was lucky enough a year ago in Malaya and Singapore and a month ago in Nigeria and the Southern Cameroons to meet a great many of the people who may he affected by this legislation, and so I hope to be able to make a useful contribution to this debate. Like everyone else who has spoken in the debate, I was enormously impressed by the


extremely high quality of the people concerned. Like other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken, I am sorry that the Bill has came a little late. If it had come a few years ago, it might have been more effective. However, there is no use in complaining about that now, and what we now have to do is to try to make the Bill as good as possible.
My right hon. Friend told us—I think I have the figures aright—that 120 out of a potential 2,000 have so far applied to join the Special List. He made it quite clear that his hopes had not by any means been completely fulfilled. I would say that this figure is a very disappointing one indeed. That is obviously why so many of those who have spoken in this debate have been asking themselves what is the reason for it. I am glad indeed to hear that Sir John Martin is now in Nigeria looking into this and kindred problems. I am sure that the report he makes after meeting the people affected, considering the great expert he is, will be a very useful one.
Like other hon. Members, I think the main reason the response has been so disappointing is that the lump sum compensation and the pension which can be taken is so generous, and the political uncertainty in some territories is so great. These two things taken together have induced a great many people to go.
I found in Eastern and Western Nigeria last month that about 25 per cent. of the administrative officers have gone in the last two or three years and that about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. have already decided to go during the next couple of years or thereabouts. I think those figures are accurate. It was extremely difficult to find anyone in the administrative service who will stay. I can count the administrative officers who have decided to stay, who have said that they are going to do so, on the fingers of one hand, out of dozens to whom I spoke.
It is, therefore, probably too late to persuade many to stay in the East or West Regions of Nigeria, and that is very unfortunate indeed, particularly in view of the attitude expressed by Dr. Azikiwe, a rather new attitude expressed so frankly in the New Year message which has been read from the other side of the House today.
In the North, though, the administrative and technical officers have not yet had to make up their minds and they will not have to do so for about two years, I think, until self-government is achieved in 1959, as we all hope it will be. So there a great deal may, perhaps, be done if very careful thought is given to this question. As everybody knows, the Northern Region is now making great progess in training new administrative officers among the Northern Nigerians themselves. I was very impressed indeed by the School of Administration in Zaria, where I spent half a day. It is very much a pet of the Premier, the Sardanna of Sokoto, who is very interested in it indeed. I was also very impressed by the School of Arabic Studies in Kano, which is doing excellent work in somewhat different fields, in an Islamic context. But unfortunately Northern Nigeria is not as far ahead as it would like to be in these directions.
The Government in the North would like the great majority and perhaps even all of the colonial officers in that Region to stay. One of the main things that I learned from talking to officers in the colonial service there is that they would be much more likely to stay if they could take part of their lump sum—perhaps half—on opting to stay, with the certain knowledge that they could have the rest when they went.
It is an idea very well worth while considering. It came from many with whom I spoke. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has it in mind as a possibility. I cannot see that it would cost any more if that were done. Bearing in mind that many of these men are between 30 and 40 years of age and have young children at school their attitude is, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Let us have half the lump sum now. We can then offset that other half against some of the political uncertainties that are bound to arise throughout Nigeria."
The second reason why so many people have already decided to go in the East and the West, and may decide to go in the North, is the very wide powers which the Secretary of State has under Clause 1, to which reference has been made on both sides of the House. One officer to whom I spoke said, "It seems to me and my friends that the Government can say just what they think is a reasonable job and


what they think is adequate pay, and there is no appeal against either of these decisions. Furthermore, there is no appeal against postings and no appeal against conditions of service."
This may seem on the face of it a somewhat unreasonable attitude, but I found it widespread. We might bear in mind that we all recognise that one of the greatest deterrents to recruiting in the Army has been the upheaval that officers and N.C.O.s, particularly those who are married, undergo. The upheavals which those who join the Special List might undergo could be far greater than anything normally experienced by Army officers and N.C.O.s. There would be difficulties of educating children in remote parts of the world, constant moves to new territories, problems of accommodation and all the other things which make life difficult for married men of 30 or 40 years of age with young children to bring up. These wide powers in the Bill must be looked at very carefully if these anxieties are to be allayed.
Several hon. Members have also spoken about secondment from other home Government Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said something very interesting and welcome on the subject. I was most impressed in Nigeria and Malaya by the fact that more and more technical officers will be required as those countries develop. Not fewer but more men and women will be required in somewhat different conditions. Undoubtedly they will be well paid. People like veterinary surgeons, forestry experts, doctors and school masters are wanted in increasing numbers.
I should like to feel, more than I do at present, that the Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of Health, and of Education were Commonwealth-minded in these things and did not think it any more unusual to send doctors and veterinary surgeons and forestry experts to Western Nigeria or Malaya, or wherever they might be required, than to Sussex or Northumberland. It is a general criticism, quite outside any party context, that some Government Departments have never been Commonwealth-minded at all. Those concerned with the police and the Post Office may be the outstanding exceptions which prove the rule, but other Government Departments could very well think much more in terms of the Common-

wealth than they do at present. I am sure that the Colonial Secretary would be the first person to welcome that.
As everyone has said in the debate, the idea behind the Bill is excellent and welcome. It is a good thing that, as it is an enabling Bill, it provides the Government with a great deal of flexibility to bear in mind and act upon the suggestions that have been made. I am very comforted by my right hon. Friend's obvious determination to make the scheme work really well. That is essential if we are to adjust ourselves to the enormous possibilities of our future relations with a country of the great importance of Nigeria. If we are to avoid what I think is a serious risk of a complete administrative and technical breakdown in some territories, it is of crucial importance that the terms of service in the Special List should be improved and that all the criticisms and suggestions made in the debate should be considered so that the Bill may become the real success which all of us wish it to be.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: In your absence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have ruffled the calm waters of this debate a little by twice asking for the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and then endeavouring unsuccessfully—and I was not surprised that I was unsuccessful—to move the adjournment of the debate until we had the advantage of the hon. and learned Gentleman's presence. I made the attempt because this is in essence a Treasury Bill. It is formally introduced by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who have a very close interest in it, but, if I may tell them so without any disrespect, they are no more than Treasury agents in this matter.
They are the people who will recruit and appoint officers for this new Overseas Service, with the consent of the Treasury. They will fix terms of remuneration on a basis which the Treasury may consider appropriate. They intend to fix superannuation provisions, subject to the agreement of the Treasury. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for us to expect a Treasury Minister to be here. If this had been a Bill relating to the home Civil Service it would not have been introduced


by any Departmental Minister but by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his capacity as the person who looks after the conditions of the Civil Service.
A number of observations have been made from both sides of the House about the position of the Treasury in this matter. I wish to make some myself at a later stage, but I should prefer to make them when the Financial Secretary found it convenient to be present. The debate has now proceeded for over three hours and we have not had any word from him or any explanation why he is not here. In order that I might regulate the length of my remarks and keep them within reasonable compass, I should be very happy to give way while we hear when he is likely to be present, so that apposite remarks may be made in the presence of the Minister who will influence the final consultations. I make this request to the Treasury Bench now. Can they kindly give an indication to the House whether or not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is coming to this debate? If not, is some other representative of the Treasury coming here?
I am putting it extremely courteously and it is not an unreasonable request to make. May we have an answer from the Secretary of State? If not, I hope that at some stage during this evening we shall have an answer. The Government have other business to get through. I do not know whether they hope to get it through by ten o'clock or not. There are two hours and ten minutes to go. I do not know whether the other Orders are essential for today and I do not know whether the Government want this Bill today or not. I can tell the Treasury Bench now that I am capable of speaking until ten o'clock or until the Closure is moved, unless we can have an answer to what I regard as a serious point, namely, some indication by the Treasury Bench why the Financial Secretary is not here and whether he is prepared to come.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the matter is put that way I am prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman. It has never been the practice of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury automatically to attend this House when a Bill mentions in various Clauses the consent of the Treasury. Were that his obligation my hon. and learned Friend would spend his

entire life in this House instead of getting on with other important work which he must do elsewhere. In this case it is clearly appropriate that when we are entering into considerable financial obligations, which we gladly do for the sake of the service and the territories, there should be the restraining hand of the Treasury in the background. It is not true, however, that the Treasury will be vetting individual applications. I myself have virtually blanket authority in this matter and I shall not refer to the Treasury all the individual applications to join the Special List.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if, when we examine the Bill Clause by Clause, there are Clauses where it is felt to be appropriate that there should be a Treasury spokesman present, I will convey that wish to my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary. However, no arrangements have been made for him to be present here tonight, and I do not think it is reasonable that the hon. Gentleman should regulate the length of his speech—interested though we would be to see if he could emulate practices in the American Senate—by the presence or absence of the Financial Secretary. I will pass on all he has said to the Financial Secretary with whom, needless to say, or rather with whose predecessor, I have had many consultations about this Bill. It will be for my hon. and learned Friend to decide whether it would be appropriate for him to turn up at various stages of this Bill.

Mrs. White: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman says he has blanket authority, but the subsection of Clause I to which I drew his attention earlier states specifically that the Treasury's consent is required to the appointment of a particular officer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I followed time-honoured language. I am letting the hon. Lady and the rest of the House into a domestic secret.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the Colonial Secretary for giving us that explanation. Let me say, however, that it is not our view. We do not wish to hound Ministers or to compel their presence in the House when they might be engaged on other duties, like trying to save £50 million, although I am bound


to say that there were occasions during the lifetime of the Labour Government when a considerable amount of hounding went on. In this case the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not merely somebody who is concerned in a Clause. He is the second backer of the Bill. His name appears there. Admittedly the name is that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Pewell) but I take it that the mantle of Powell has descended upon Simon and that between them they share tie responsibility.

Mr. Ede: The mantle of Enoch?

Mr. Callaghan: I knew I was getting close to it, but I was not sure.

Mr. Ede: The Scriptures say
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not.'

Mr. Callaghan: I resign from this competition of erudition, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
There is a point here. I am sure the Colonial Secretary sees it, by his comments. The Treasury hand is written right through the Bill and later I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to deny, if he can, that the reason for the delay in producing this Bill is because of differences with the Treasury. It is a delay that, in the view of a number of us, has been fatal to the success of the Measure in certain of the territories discussed here this evening.
None of us here can compel the Financial Secretary to come to the House. Yet I take it that he is within five minutes' walk of it. It would not take the hon. and learned Gentleman long to walk across, and it would have been reasonable that he should have been here. Therefore, I ask the Colonial Secretary to convey to his hon. and learned Friend, as he has promised to do, the observations made from both sides of the House in this debate about the attitude of the Treasury on the employment of colonial civil servants.
Whilst I think that this Bill is welcome, it is a hotch-potch. I do not believe that anybody in 30 or 40 years' time who writes the history of the Overseas Service will say about the principles underlying the employment of overseas colonial civil servants today what historians today can say about the prin-

ciples which underlay the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms which led to the establishment of the home Civil Service 100 years ago.
I was sorry to disagree with my learned and hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) in springing to the assistance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who made what I thought was an excellent speech. It seems to me that there will be groups of people employed overseas in future, and that we shall not know into which group anybody comes. We shall have those willing to go on the Special List, those who will not be willing to do so and who will presumably be employed on some other terms. There will be indigenous officers, there will be contract officers—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have them now.

Mr. Callaghan: I know, but I was hoping that when a Bill was produced to deal with the future Overseas Service, this hotch-potch might be reduced to a framework into which these people could be fitted more easily. From what has been said on both sides of the House today it is clear that it is the uncertainty of the position of these officers that is causing, in the words of one of my correspondents in West Africa, the whole idea to go sour on them, This Bill is welcome because it goes a stage forward, but I do not think that the Colonial Secretary will find that it will last in its present form. There will have to be a substantial review of our staffing arrangements for the overseas territories within the next few years in order to put them on a more permanent basis.
Now I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about the appropriate Secretary of State. From my reading of the Bill, and because his name appears on the back of it, I take it that it is the Secretary of State for the Colonies who will be responsible for the Special List. My hon. Friend thought that it would also include the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations or, indeed, even the Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether that is true or not. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary will be able to tell us? If it is, it seems to me that the time is coming when this should be taken


out of the hands of the various Secretaries of State, for a number of reasons.
In the first place, I can see that the jealous pride of the newly emerging nations may engender a feeling that they will not want to be under the wing of the Colonial Secretary, ample though it may be. Incidentally, the pinion has been slightly injured recently but we are glad to see that it has now recovered. They may prefer to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If this is the case, if we are to have groups of Secretaries of State concerned with this matter, we shall get into a state of confusion.
I should have thought there was a case for saying that the Civil Service Commission might handle this matter, since it handles the home Civil Service adequately; indeed it does so extremely well. This would remove any semblance of patronage, although that is fast going out of the door in the Colonial Service. It seems to me that it would make for an administratively tidier arrangement if the Civil Service Commission handled it. I have no fixed views about this but, if more than one Secretary of State is to be concerned in the List, it might be an administrative improvement.
Now I come to the question of the Central Pool. I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), regret very much the abandonment of that pool, and the fact that it has taken us two years to reach this conclusion. We must ask the Colonial Secretary some questions. The right hon. Gentleman said that his colleagues in other Departments play up well if he asks them to lend men to go to the overseas territories. I expect they do, but more than that is required.
Is it dependent at the present time upon the good will of the Department concerned whether it releases an appropriate man for service elsewhere, or can the Colonial Secretary put his finger on the man he wants? I imagine that the first of those alternatives is correct. That will not be very successful in the future. Hon. Members who have seen the inside of a Government Department know that what tends to happen is that if it gets a request for someone and the Department cannot refuse, it sends the fellow

it likes least and wants to get rid of most. That is not the sort of person we want to see going out into the Colonial Territories. If the right hon. Gentleman is abandoning the Central Pool and is to rely upon the good will of his colleagues in other Departments to supply him with men, how will this arrangement be made? What choice will the right hon. Gentleman have about the people he hopes he will get?
The Bill has been very much delayed, in fact for eighteen months, because of the failure of the Treasury to match up to the needs of the situation. It has haggled and argued and wrangled about the conditions of service under which these men are to be employed and has failed to give the guarantee that was necessary to enable the men to take on the job which had to be done. The consequence is that in at least one territory the opportunity has been dissipated to a large extent. The Treasury is acting in accordance with the worst traditions I could expect from it. I think most hon. Members agree that we can offer very little to the Colonial Territories except skill and brains. It is surely worth our while to pay what is necessary in order to get them.
Suppose these problems were posed in terms of the cold war. We would get a very different response and a vastly different decision. Suppose it were said that the Russians were sending out 500 administrators, technicians and specialists into the Colonial Territories and were willing to pay for them. The whole Treasury Front Bench would be falling over itself to say how wrong and wicked this was. Well, here is the cheapest way in which we can maintain a continuing influence in these territories, where the emerging nations want us to do so. One reason why I feel rather savage about the Treasury is that by the expenditure of an infinitesimally small amount we could guarantee the salaries of all the necessary men. We need not enter into all the fine shades of difference about which the Colonial Secretary will be haggling with the Treasury. We could do the whole thing.
I am told that the French Government which, between periods of resignation, seems to be able to get things done, have taken over the whole responsibility for the payment of the salaries of French civil servants in Colonial Territories.


What a wonderful and rich investment this would be, and what a good return we could get for a very small expenditure.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth) indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should object to that statement, unless he wishes to support the Treasury. Perhaps he is casting his mind forward to Thursday and thinking that Government supporters will have to support the Treasury and defend the proposition of paring off the last £50 million irrespective of what happens.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the French Government were getting a good return for their expenditure, but that is not true in every case, for example in Algeria.

Mr. Callaghan: I accept that point, although that was not in fact what I said.
Some of us believe that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be present during the Committee stage of the Bill so that we can put these considerations to him with some force and try to get the Treasury to behave generously about the Overseas Civil Service and the Special List.
I agree very much with what was said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about the need for movement overseas from home Departments and back again. In view of the fact that the Central Pool is now being abandoned, I should like to see a regular call upon our home Departments for movement out to Colonial Territories. I believe we should find a vast untapped reservoir of men in home Departments who would be ready, indeed anxious, to go for five years or any other contract period, to get a spell of service overseas. The experience would strengthen our home Departments and broaden them.
I would ask another question about salaries. Although the Bill is not an enabling one, I understand that under it the Colonial Secretary will determine rates of pay of these officers and will prescribe them. The hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) said there would be equality of salary for them, no matter where they were serving. There is obviously variety

in the capacities of territories to pay and—

Mr. M. Clark Hutchison: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I am the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, and that I am not a baronet.

Mr. Callaghan: If only the hon. Member were a member of the Liberal National Party I guarantee that he would be a baronet within eighteen months. As it is, he will have to wait a little longer. He is on the East Coast of Scotland. I am told that they do very well on that side of Scotland, so perhaps he will not have very long to wait.
There is variance in the capacity of territories to pay. What will the Colonial Secretary do when one territory comes to him and says, "We should like to have half a dozen of your chaps but we cannot afford to pay for them"? Would the Government be in a position under the Bill to subsidise the salaries of those officers? I presume we should not approve of cut-price officers. Are the Government free to put in some measure of subsidy so as to give top price to the people needed, irrespective of the capacity of the territory to pay?
A point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), about the courses which these officers take before they go overseas. Somebody has referred to these officers as emerging slightly pompous, and said that the fresh breezes of New Zealand should blow through them because that would help the officers a great deal. Whatever we may think about this point, I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he has recently had a chance of looking at the courses undertaken at Oxford and Cambridge by these men. I do not know whether Oxford and Cambridge are the two best universities for this purpose. There might be something to say for the red-brick universities, which seem more appropriate. [Interruption.] I know that I may be offending hon. Gentlemen who went to Oxford or Cambridge, but I hope they will be able to sustain my criticism.
The breadth and nature of the courses will obviously be of great importance when the men go out into the territories. I ask the Colonial Secretary what review is made of the courses which are taken by these young men and to what extent there is consultation with or control by


the Colonial Office about what is done in those two universities at the present time.
It is not now necessary for me to make the lengthy speech to which the House was looking forward. In view of what the Colonial Secretary has said, I conclude by saying that we give a modified welcome to the Bill. We think it represents a step forward in the course and history of the Overseas Civil Service. We think it will help. There is a great deal to be done very quickly and we hope that when we get to the Committee stage we shall have assurances from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that will lead us to the conclusion that the Treasury will not throw away the Commonwealth for the sake of 6½d.

8.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I will do my best to answer a number of questions which have been raised, although a great many of them can more properly be dealt with on the Committee stage. On that occasion, whether fortified by the attendance of other Ministers or not, I will do my best to give appropriate answers to what really are Committee points.
I must first apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), who for the moment is not in his place, as I cannot at this moment give the precise numbers of those officers who in 1956–57 were selected for appointment to the Overseas Service and declined, but I will send him the information.
This debate has certainly shown the passionate interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the welfare of the main instrument of Colonial development, Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. I am very glad that the speeches have taken on such an interested, and, at times, such a vehement tone. I do not in the least resent that. I have been very anxious for this Bill for some considerable time. I am delighted that it has now been possible to introduce it, and I believe it will make a substantial contribution to the cause we all have at heart.
I say this about what may appear to be some slight delay in the introduction of the Bill. Clearly it raised a number of new problems and new issues. It was also highly desirable when we finalised

the Special List that we should do so in a form which was likely to commend itself to those overseas Governments with which we were anxious to make Special List agreements. It would have been absurd had we introduced a Bill which bore no relation to what in fact the overseas Governments—who are the essential parties in the Special List procedure—were prepared to agree.
There was bound to be a great deal of discussion and inevitably some delay, but, in order that the ill effects of the delay should as far as possible be offset, I made a statement, through the medium of a White Paper, in May of 1956 making it quite clear that there was going to be a Special List. In so far as that could bring solace and comfort to members of the Overseas Civil Service the promise that there would be such a list and that legislation would be introduced for it must have done something to retain their confidence.
I recognise that by itself no Act of Parliament can solve our problems, either of recruitment or of the maintenance of a healthy service on the scale that we all desire. A great many other considerations enter in and not the least is the attitude of local governments. I have lost no opportunity on my many visits to colonial territories to impress on political leaders the necessity of casting their mantle over the Civil Service in the way in which British Ministers have been accustomed to, which means that Ministers must take responsibility for unpopular decisions and not lay the blame on officials. If attacks are made on officials the Ministers responsible must instantly leap to their defence. Not the least of the difficulties some of us have found in recent years has been the fact that individual civil servants have been mentioned adversely by name in a number of legislatures and charges have been made against them which have not been answered and they themselves were precluded from making any answer at all. Those are the sort of circumstances which work against that peace of mind and contentment which we are all anxious to achieve.
I can, of course, introduce with the consent of the Treasury and of my colleague and with the approval of Parliament—such legislation as seems desirable.


but that by itself will not do all we need. This is bound to be a business in which co-operation between ourselves and the local governments is imperative. When I say co-operation, I mean not only by words, which are always welcome, but by deeds, which are even more welcome. There are now many evidences that responsible Ministers in the territories most concerned fully appreciate this fact and I hope they are taking every opportunity of making it abundantly clear.
A number of very important points have been made in this debate and I shall certainly ponder on all the suggestions that have been made. I shall come more educated to the Committee stage than I would otherwise have been. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) regretted what he called the loss in the appeal of the services and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) also referred to the same theme. We ought to get this into perspective, as I think my hon. Friend clearly did. In spite of the political unsettlement in different areas, in spite of the many other attractive opportunities in commerce and industry open to professional people, we are still recruiting over the whole field at four times the pre-war rate of recruitment. So I do not think we ought to take too seriously a charge that there is a loss of appeal to the services. In administration the rate of recruitment is about the same as pre-war, but in the professional branches it is much higher and, over the whole field, it is four times what it was before the war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East was quite right in saying that there is an increasing demand and what matters is the gap between what we can supply and what the demand is shown to be. There is a substantial gap, but we are recruiting at four times the pre-war level over the whole field. I am most grateful to those of my officers and others who have so quickly got out the figures which are really "hot" from the printer. The number of vacancies in administration on the last day of last year was 130, and in all branches 1,384. That is a substantial improvement on 1956. At the end of 1956 we had 170 administrative vacancies and 1,456 vacancies in all branches. The proportion of vacancies to the total number of overseas officers

in the service now is very roughly about 7 per cent. We must do what we can to close that gap, but we ought to see the gap in perspective.

Mr. Creech Jones: Would the vacancies include omission from the list of Malaya, Ghana and possibly other countries?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, that is taken into account. The proportion now is 7 per cent. of vacancies in the Colonial dependent territories and the figures have been adjusted to take account of that fact.
I was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and a number of other hon. Members for the number of officers leaving Ghana and Nigeria. These figures represent very substantial losses. If the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) thinks I am unduly pessimistic, I hope she will realise that no greater disservice could be done to the cause we all have at heart than to be unwisely complacent. There is a very real problem here. I believe that in the Special List we have a potential dynamic appeal which, properly presented and developed, may well help to meet the situation.
I believe there is some dynamism in this Bill, but I was being brutally frank when I drew attention to the fact that all is not well and we ought not to think it is; above all we ought not to allow those in whose hands is the cure of these ills to believe that all is well. In Ghana, approximately 400 officers have left, which is approximately 50 per cent. of the entitled officers—that is, officers entitled to compensation. About 50 per cent. have retired. The retirement scheme in Ghana dates from July, 1955, and the retirements have, therefore, been spread over quite a long period.
In Eastern Nigeria, 51 have retired, which is 23 per cent. of the entitled officers. In Western Nigeria, 68 have left, which is between 23 per cent. and 24 per cent. of the entitled officers. In both these territories retirement schemes date only from the autumn of last year.
We come to the question which has run through the debate and which a number of hon. Members have raised—the appeal which substantial compensation terms are bound to make to officers who are confronted with very difficult decisions. My hon. and gallant Friend


the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish), who has had another singularly successful tour in Colonial Territories, and other hon. Members have raised this point, among them my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). In a way, the very nature and size of the compensation scheme has been one of our great disadvantages, but I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this respect to put themselves in my position: in fairness or propriety, we could not have used the financial weapon to induce officers to stay against their better judgment. For example, we could not have said, "We will not use our best offices to try to get good compensation terms for loss of office or if a situation arises which makes you want to retire."
If we had not been so successful in our negotiations with Colonial Territories and if we had not obtained such substantial compensation, no doubt some officers who have left would not have left, but I think I should have been doing my duty very badly by those officers if I had failed to get them the best possible compensation terms. Side by side with that has gone the duty to try to do everything one can to induce them to stay.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) used a phrase about abandoning the central pool. It is too early to say that that will be so. I have no wish whatever to do that, and as long as there is a reasonable chance of success being achieved that way, I have every intention of preserving the framework into which it can fit. Indeed, as I said to the right hon. Member for Wakefield it might be that some Special List officers in Nigeria who were not wanted for further employment there might themselves form the beginnings of the central pool for employment elsewhere.
I made this quite clear and I also repeated the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in March last year that it was intended to test the demand for such a pool
by improving the existing arrangements by which members of the Home and Overseas Civil Service can be made available to Commonwealth countries without prejudice to their pension rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 96.]
That, in fact, we have done, and Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill are expressly

designed to do it. We are not abandoning the central pool, although I am bound to say that at this stage I think that the Special List procedure is the more fruitful line of approach.

Mr. Creech Jones: In connection with the Central Register, in 1954 a time limit was given to the Overseas Service for people to apply to go on to the Register. Is it now said that the response of the Overseas Service was so poor that it hardly justified the existence of the Register? What was the experience of the appeal which was made by which they might apply for admission within six months?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said at the start that there was very little indication that such a register and pool would appeal to younger people, who would be recruited for a particular job in a particular territory. I said that it was more likely to have an appeal to older people.
One of my hon. Friends rightly pointed out that the Special List demands a Special List agreement, and this is the reason that a distinction is drawn between officers on the Special List and others. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made some mild fun out of the suggestion that there would be a series of different people serving in the Colonial Service who would be on different terms, but that seems to me to be quite unavoidable. Nothing that we do in the House will do away with the growing system of recruitment on contract terms. Anybody who has had to deal with the political leaders in emerging territories knows how reluctant they are to saddle themselves, as they regard it, with a lifelong obligation to people whose skill may well have been acquired by people of their own Territory long before the lifetime of the European officers has been exhausted. We are seeing more and more recruitment on contract terms and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Incidentally, the Special List is not meant to deal with officers recruited on contract terms. The leader of the Liberal Party said that he thought they would be particularly appropriate for the Special List, but the Special List is meant to deal with people who are pensionable, which they are not, and who are eligible for compensation, which they are not. That is not to say that in exceptional


circumstances the United Kingdom Government and the local Government alike might not agree that some officer could qualify both for pension and for compensation and could find himself on the Special List.
The point which I was trying to make was that nothing we do can alter the fact that there will be a growing number of people on contract terms. We therefore cannot have the tidy arrangement which we should like to have and which nostalgic and other considerations might lead us to think preferable. There are bound to be distinctions, also, between Special List officers and other members of the Overseas Civil Service for the simple reason that the Special List set-up involves a Government which is qualified and ready to sign a Special List agreement.
In respect of both the Nigerian Governments, there have been 120 applications. Sir John Martin will make recommendations to me and he will most certainly look into the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes—the suggestion of an officer taking half his compensation and remaining. I must say, however, that the Governments concerned in Africa up to now have not shown any great liking for the idea of officers remaining who have already drawn some of their compensation. That is not to say, in view of the very grave situation, that this is not a suggestion worth considering. It has been put to Sir John Martin, and I think it well worth pursuing. As I have said, however, there are bound to be officers employed on the Special List and other officers of H.M.O.C.S. who are not so employed. In Nigeria, so far there have been 120 applications.
Discussions are going on now in respect of Malaya, and in my opening speech I ventured to hint that they were taking a fruitful turn, but it is not for me to state to the House what will happen in Malaya which is no longer my responsibility, nor have the talks yet been concluded.
A number of hon. Members, primarily my hon. Friend the Member for Waver-tree asked why this should not apply to the whole of the Colonial Service. May I here say to all my hon. Friends how grateful I am for the work they have done in this particular field. This interest is, of course, common to all Members,

on both sides of the House, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, who has been persistent in this matter, deserves special praise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East for his admirable articles on this very matter in the New Commonwealth. They are entitled to be singled out, but, as I say, hon. Members on both sides are equally zealous in this sphere.
At first sight, that would appear to be an obvious thing to do, but I must, at this stage, put in a ward for Her Majesty's Treasury and remind hon. Members of the obligation there is on the Treasury not to enter into open-ended commitments without knowing exactly where they will lead. I do not normally find myself in a position of publicly defending the Treasury—though I naturally stand by every decision that the Government arrive at in their collective wisdom—but I think that it is reasonable to point out that if there is to be a Special List there should be special circumstances surrounding it.
As an experiment, we have applied it to Nigeria and it seems to us that we should first concentrate on dealing with the situation in Nigeria, and making the scheme a success there. I must point out that, in some other territories, neither the officers nor the Governments may altogether like the Special List procedure. Clearly an agreement must be introduced which is acceptable to the local Government and will also be welcomed by the officers themselves. Certain Governments, and it is no secret that this is the view of the Central African Federation, feel strongly that their services should be locally based. It has also been borne in on me in recent months and years that overseas officers in Nigeria and Malaya have, in many cases, shown notable reluctance to accepting the provision of compulsory transfer from one territory to another, which is a special feature of the Special List arrangements.
The arrangements would also, I think, apply in East Africa. There, also, I have reason to believe that the officers would not altogether welcome the provision under which Special List officers transferred to a particular territory can have their appointment terminated at twelve months' notice by the Government of that territory. These are matters that I would, on another occasion, be glad


to develop, but I am only too ready to negotiate Special List arrangements where the officers want them and the emerging Government are ready to negotiate them, and I will lose no opportunity to do so.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield also asked me about the progress in the seconding from the home public service, and whether this will be extended. It will, indeed, be pressed on with vigour. I have a summary of the various Government Departments that have helped in this way, and I will gladly show it to the right hon. Gentleman to illustrate how widespread are the links between the various Government Departments, and public organisations, municipal and otherwise, in the United Kingdom.
He also asked if I would look again at what he called, not unjustly, the anomaly in regard to the pensions of those Governors who did not enjoy the advantages of the 1956 Act. I have taken, as I think the Governors concerned would themselves agree, a very close personal interest in this matter. I was very anxious to find a way out of the difficulty, but—as I think any Minister would find in seeking to make changes in pension laws in order to meet what are undoubtedly hard cases—the difficulty is that it does not stop at the particular category of pensioners, eminent though these are, with whom we are concerned; and the repercussions in every field of public service would be widespread. I have reluctantly had to tell those Governors that I could see no way in which I could meet what they wanted. I made one or two suggestions which they did not think were really adequate—nor did I, for I recognise the hardship that had been caused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree and many hon. Gentlemen opposite asked what the criteria are by which people are appointed to the Special List, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked a number of questions, with which I shall try to deal, including that one.
All pensionable overseas officers in Nigeria are eligible to apply, and that provision, I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, most certainly includes women. But it does not include local officers—Nigerian officers. The

object is to keep officers in the Service, and the scheme is not really needed for local officers. I think that a moment's thought will show that that is so. But, of course, it includes any officer from any British Dominion who is a member of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. All of us who travel widely in the Colonial Territories know what an invaluable part Dominion people are playing in that Service. All of them who are members of the Service would be eligible to apply.
Officers must be recommended by the Governor, and in self-governing regions by the public service commission also. Such officers could normally be taken on the Special List. There is no question at all of there being an individual scrutiny by the Treasury, though the conventional wording might legitimately give rise to such a fear.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked whether—though he might have known this phrase from the particular jargon of this business—we intended to "top up" salaries in the poorer territories. That is not our intention. There are many difficulties in the way of "topping-up" salaries, not least the encouragement which it gives to local Governments not to pay a proper salary themselves. The salaries will be agreed between the United Kingdom Government and the territorial Government, and if there is disagreement, this would go to arbitration.
I was sorry to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) that some of the officers whom he recently met felt that Clause 1 of the Bill might turn the scale in favour of their not applying for the Special List. I am delighted to know that Parliamentary productions of this kind are scrutinised with that sort of care, because it is an earnest of the importance which they attach to this Bill and to any measure which is designed to give them the necessary encouragement and peace of mind. I can assure such officers that there would be no question of recommending scales of pay that were unworthy, or transfer to jobs that were patently unsuitable. Nor would they find, in fact, that they were being confronted with more likely dangers in the field of transfer than are common to all who join a service in which constant changes are so often the fate of officials.
I was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree about employment under the Commonwealth Relations Office or under the Foreign Office, and I was asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East whether the Secretary of State was uniformly the Colonial Secretary or whether he could be transferred into the Commonwealth Relations Secretary or Foreign Secretary in certain circumstances. In regard to recruitment and employment of experts under the technical co-operative scheme, this is not covered, as the hon. Member knows, by any specific legislation, but is carried out by administrative action. It is not intended that this Bill should change the existing procedure, because there are cases where it is convenient to look to H.M.O.C.S. for the supply of an expert to be sent out, as under the Colombo Plan, and there would be no bar to employment of that expert being made, or being stated to be made, under the provisions of this Measure. The responsibility for bearing the cost of pay and any superannuation contributions would thus be borne by the United Kingdom.
In the case of Foreign Office appointment to S.E.A.T.O., these posts are normally filled by secondment from the United Kingdom Government, or from the Foreign Service, but if a person in the Overseas Civil Service were recruited, the provisions of this Bill could, if necessary, be applied. In cases of this kind, negotiations on the terms and conditions of service would be in the hands of the Commonwealth Relations Secretary or the Foreign Secretary, and not of myself. The phrase "Secretary of State" has been expressly used so as to provide for that contingency.

Mr. Callaghan: I ought to have realised this, but I do not. What happens when Nigeria becomes independent? Is it still the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When I have started on this business, I remain the responsible Minister, but if somebody is transferred to a territory which is already independent or is in the crucial stage of becoming independent, it would be the Commonwealth Relations Secretary or the Foreign Secretary who would be the responsible Minister.
The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port referred to the age of 50 as being a difficult age for a man who finds himself out of a job and seeking further employment. The actual words of the White Paper, as the hon. Lady will remember, are:
If an officer becomes unemployed through no fault of his own, he will be left on full pay for as long as may be necessary up to a maximum of five years or until he reaches the age of 50, if that is earlier.
I am very glad to say that, with the full agreement of the Nigerian Government, we have introduced into agreements with them the age of 55 instead of 50, which is a very welcome improvement. The hon. Lady also asked me about doctors and nurses, and if they would be eligible for the Special List. I am glad that last year we were able to recruit for Overseas Service 100 doctors and 126 nurses. I know of no field where service is more needed and more valued than in the nursing and medical professions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. M. Clark Hutchison) asked a number of questions and referred to the variation in pensions. I know that what he says is so. I do not think I should be in order in going in detail into the pensions of the various territories in East Africa or West Africa and their relative value in relation to the United Kingdom pension increases, but that is a subject which in our view is worth discussing at some time because it is a very important one.
I know that from time to time I draw the attention of Colonial Governments to the feelings of Members of Parliament on this matter, but the Overseas Colonial Service has never been completely unified and conditions have never been completely uniform, nor has it been home based or controlled directly by Whitehall. Of course there are disadvantages in this, but there are also great advantages. It derives from our general colonial policy of devolution, which is bound to include devolution in salaries and other public service matters Salaries and establishments are determined by Governments and by Legislatures in the Colonies, which must be allowed some responsibility.
My hon. Friend asked whether Commonwealth candidates were eligible. I can answer that with an emphatic "Yes", either for the Special List or for Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service generally.
My hon. Friend also said that he did not like the term
Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service".
He suggested that it should be the "Commonwealth Service". This would not, I think, be suitable because it would imply that Commonwealth Governments had a responsibility for the Service, whereas responsibility lies solely with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. It would also imply that the Service was intended to operate in Commonwealth countries more widely than it is likely to do. I think that the name which has been chosen is a good one in the sense that it is acceptable to Most officers to whom I have talked, and it is certainly more acceptable than "Commonwealth Service" would be to newly independent countries.
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) saw some significance and something sinister in Clause 2 (4) of the Bill which provides that a pension order may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order. This is necessary if pension arrangements are to be kept up to date. Clearly, they change for the better from time to time, and an order must then be revoked and another introduced. Orders are subject to negative Resolutions of this House, and any Order which appears unfair could be debated in the House.
I have done my best to answer a wide range of questions, leaving a number of detailed points to be dealt with in Committee. I do not in the least resent the criticisms to which I have been subjected, because I know that underlying them there is a general belief that the Bill will do good, and in that spirit I welcome the speeches which have been made. I commend the Bill to the House, and, through the House, send a message of good will to all who are serving in the Overseas Civil Service and the thanks of the nation for the splendid work they are doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Finlay.]

Committee Tomorrow

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS SERVICE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Secretary of State to appoint officers available for civilian employment in public services overseas, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the said Act or of any order made thereunder;
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the said Act or of any order made thereunder, or in pursuance of any arrangements made by the Secretary of State (whether before or after the passing of the said Act) with Governments of overseas territories, being arrangements relating to employment in the public services of those territories, and any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under any other enactment.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: This is the great moment for which we have all been waiting. Many of us have sat here since 4.45 p.m. hoping that we should see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whose name appears for the first time on the Order Paper attached to this Money Resolution. We wish to congratulate him on his appointment, on the circumstances in which he has succeeded, and now we are to be robbed of all this. It is really a sad deprivation for the Committee, Sir Gordon.
As a minor matter, which, of course, the Treasury Front Bench would not think worthy of consideration, I mention that, even if those considerations do not move them, it would not be a bad thing if we had a word of explanation about this Money Resolution. After all, this at least is something on which the Treasury does spend its time. Here is where the great quarrels are coming in


the weeks which lie ahead. Now we shall see what the Treasury Ministers are made of. We shall see how these new officials face the battle and fight inflation. Yet, at the first sign of an engagement, the Financial Secretary does not even turn up on the battlefield.
I am bound to say that this is a pretty poor start for the Government. Many of us really hoped that they were in earnest. I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not resigned. Perhaps that is the reason for his failure to appear. If he has resigned, no doubt we shall hear some explanation from his successor. After all, the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) appeared on the Bill, but by the time we receive the Order Paper, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has gone and the new Financial Secretary is the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). Has he gone now? Shall we find that when we reach the next stage there is someone else? I feel that there is a real mystery behind this. It is not a simple matter of £50 million. There is far more to it than appears on the surface.
We made a simple request that the Financial Secretary should come. At a quarter to seven we asked that he should come, and he did not. At 7 o'clock we asked that he might come. He still is not here. Even in the present state of London transport, it should not take him all that time to come across from Whitehall; it is only 300 yards even if he walks it. We really shall hold it against the present Financial Secretary that, on the first occasion when he had the opportunity to strike a blow for the Government, he could not be in his place to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

8.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As the House knows, the two purposes of the Bill are to raise the limit for advances for the new town development corporations and to remove a duplication in the presentation of accounts. These two purposes are simple and, in themselves, I think, quite acceptable in all parts of the House. It is true that there are one or two related matters which do not produce quite the same unanimity, but I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will think that it would not be appropriate on Third Reading to pursue these particular questions.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On the Second Reading of the Bill, and again in Committee, we had some vigorous criticisms to make of the practice and policy of the Government in relation to new towns. Some of those criticisms would not be in order on Third Reading, and of the others I can only say that they were so well and truly delivered in the first place and recorded to that effect now that I, for myself, would not venture to improve upon them by mere repetition.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision for grants out of the Exchequer to local authorities in Scotland, to abolish the Education (Scotland) Fund, to amend the law of Scotland relating to valuation for rating, to provide for the increase of fees under certain enactments relating to marriage and to registration of births, deaths and marriages, and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise—

A. the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) the expenses of the Secretary of State in paying general grants under the said Act;
(ii) any expenses which by virtue of the said Act are to be defrayed by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament instead of the Education (Scotland) Fund constituted by section sixty-nine of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946;
(iii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other Act;

B. the payment into the Exchequer of—

(i) any balance in the said Education (Scotland) Fund at the coming into operation of any provision of the said Act of the present Session providing for the abolition of that Fund;
(ii) any sums which by virtue of the said Act of the present Session are to be paid into the Exchequer instead of the said Education (Scotland) Fund;
(iii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the receipts of the Registrar-General for Births, Deaths and Marriages in Scotland.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — R.N.V.R. (HUMBER DIVISION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I would begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary on his appointment to the Admiralty, which, I am sure, will give the greatest pleasure to his friends on both sides of the House, and, indeed, to the Royal Navy as a whole. I should like him also to pass my congratulations to his predecessor on his elevation in Ministerial rank, even if it does mean going to a more junior Service.
The question I wish to discuss arises out of an Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 4th December last year relating to the decision of the Admiralty to close the R.N.V.R. Division on the Humber known as H.M.S. "Galatea". In this debate, I want to discuss the future rather than the past, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I start by saying that in my view and in the view of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who represent Humber constituencies and of many of our constituents, the Admiralty has made a wrong decision in closing H.M.S. "Galatea".
The Humber Division of the R.N.V.R. has an excellent record. I believe that the sea time spent in the minesweeper belonging to the port of Hull, H.M.S. "Humber", is second to none. The division has been criticised concerning recruiting for its List I, but I feel convinced that had it been given a chance to establish a recruiting drive and allowed, say, one or two years in which to raise its numbers before being closed down, it would have succeeded in gaining the required numbers on List I.
The closing of H.M.S. "Galatea" means the severing of the active link that binds the great County of Yorkshire to the Royal Navy. This, together with the closing of H.M.S. "Ceres" at Wetherby, means that the only naval establishments in Yorkshire will cease to exist. The closing of the one R.N.V.R. division between Newcastle and the Thames raises in the minds of many of us the question of why the Humber was singled out as the only


R.N.V.R. division to be closed. I do not, however, wish to make invidious comparisons with other R.N.V.R. divisions. I wish to address my remarks to the future rather than to the past. Before doing so, however, I ask the Minister to convey my thanks to his noble Friend the First Lord for his courtesy in receiving a deputation of Members from both sides of the House before the final decision to close H.M.S. "Galatea" was taken.
Now, as to the future. First, in regard to the position of the officers and ratings at present borne on the list of the Humber Division and the accommodation of that division in Hull. What is to happen to the existing officers and men on List I? List I means that officers and ratings must be able to attend the division one night a week for training. Obviously, if the division closes and the nearest division is Newcastle or London, they will not be able to do so. It seems, therefore, that there will be no future List I from the Humber.
On the other hand, when the question was raised on 4th December, we were given the assurance that the officers and men at present on the books of the Humber Division would continue to receive sea training.
What about men on List II. Their obligation is to carry out two weeks' sea training a year. What happens to them? Can they still have their two weeks' sea training attached to other divisions? It so, what will be the cost to the Admiralty in taking these men from the Humber to other parts of the country to give them training? It has been said regarding the Hull Sea Training Centre
…the Sea Training Centre will be reduced to a centre for training communications ratings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1957; Vol. 579. c. 384.]
May I ask what that means? The implication seems to be that a training school for communication ratings in the R.N.V.R. would be set up at Hull. Is that supposition true? I hope that it is. On the other hand, it has been rumoured that all that is meant is that a section of what is known as the Royal Naval Volunteer Wireless Reserve will be maintained on the Humber which could be accommodated in one small room in the present accommodation used by H.M.S. "Galatea". Could my right hon. Friend give me some idea as to

the scope of this new training centre to be set up on the Humber? Also, can members of other naval branches at present on the books of H.M.S. "Galatea" transfer to the communication branch to carry on with their training in their own home port? What happens to potential recruits for the R.N.V.R. in a very large area of country—both Yorkshire and Lincolnshire'? They cannot now join List Is it still possible for them to join List II and do their two weeks' training elsewhere? Or does it mean that the men in this large area will not be able to join the R.N.V.R. at all?
I appreciate that the reason for this reduction of the R.N.V.R. is that fewer people are required because only those immediately available on the outbreak of war are wanted in this thermo-nuclear age. I should like it made clear, if there is no longer a reasonable requirement for large numbers, whether in the future this means that only those allowed to join the R.N.V.R. are those who happen to live near an existing R.N.V.R. centre.
May I turn in the same context to the future use of the accommodation at present used by H.M.S. "Galatea." It is, I understand, on lease to the Admiralty, and I believe that the lease has five years to run. I believe the Admiralty have spent a considerable amount of money on these buildings in the past few years, including the installation of a new automatic telephone exchange. What will happen to those buildings? If they are to remain vacant, surely the Admiralty will be involved in expense. Will facilities be made available, as today, to other organisations such as the Sea Cadets, which count very much on the co-operation they have had from the Humber Division of the R.N.V.R.? Will they still be able to use accommodation used by the new communications school in Hull?
The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that behind these questions there is a suggestion to this effect: is it really worth while closing the division? Is the saving in pounds, shillings and pence worth while in view of the fact that for the next five years they will presumably have to pay for this accommodation, and also pay to transport to other parts of the country officers and ratings who originally received their training in Hull?
I turn from the question of H.M.S. "Galatea" herself to the broader question of the new Naval Reserve in the context of which the fate of H.M.S. "Galatea" has been decided. We were told that the R.N.R. and the R.N.V.R. were to amalgamate into a new Reserve to be called the Royal Naval Reserve. I repeat the question I posed a short time ago in a slightly different context. Does this mean that only officers and men who live in towns adjacent to existing R.N.V.R. centres are now able to join the new Naval Reserve? If they are allowed to join only List I and are not allowed to join List II, surely that is what it means.
At the moment, if a man wishes to join the R.N.V.R. but cannot attend weekly drills he is permitted in certain circumstances to join List II, which means that he undertakes two weeks' training a year and attend the annual inspection. This enables officers and men who are keen on joining a naval Reserve to do so even though they do not happen to live near R.N.V.R. centres. If List II men are not now to do this two weeks' sea training, it makes it virtually only a paper reserve. That may be forced on the Admiralty by the advent of modern war. If so, I would understand it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear today as there has been a certain amount of confusion about the position, which could not be cleared up within the scope of a Parliamentary Answer.
If indeed List II is to become a paper list requiring no training, are officers, and ratings at present on List II in all R.N.V.R. divisions to be allowed to retain their uniforms, so that they may be used on ceremonial and other special occasions which so often fall to the lot of the Reserves?
I asked my hon. Friend's predecessor in office whether any of this new organisation of the reserves particularly the alteration of regulations affecting List I and List II, apply to the Royal Marines Forces Volunteer Reserve. I received an answer that it did not. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me that any changes in List I and List II which may be contemplated for the new Royal Naval Reserve will definitely not apply to the Royal Marine Forces Volunteer Reserve.
The Humber division has had a comparatively short life compared with some other R.N.V.R. divisions, but it was won its place in the affections of very many people on both sides of the Humber. That has been fully shown by the great amount of publicity there was, and the number of letters which members on both sides of the House received, when rumours got around that H.M.S. "Galatea" might have to be closed. The record of training of the division has been excellent and the performance of H.M.S. "Humber" in the N.A.T.O. exercises earned praise on all sides. It is very sad that such a centre has either to be closed or to be reduced.
I hope that the nucleus which will remain, even if it is only a R.N.V.R. wireless reserve, or as I hope, a communications training centre for the whole of the R.N.V.R., will form the nucleus on which a new division can be built when the time comes to expand the Royal Navy and the naval reserves.
I apologise to my hon. Friend for bombarding him with so many questions on the first day of the resumption of the sittings of this House and on the first day in which he comes here new in his Ministerial office. I apologise for that, but I feel confident he will be capable of dealing with these questions. I would conclude by offering him once again my congratulations, and of indicating to him the great pleasure his appointment has given to very many people in the Royal Navy who know of his interest and his long and excellent record in the Senior Service.

9.5 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland: I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, Admiralty on his very honourable appointment and to assure him how very pleased we all are that he has a job which everybody would like to have. His first engagement, which happens so early after his appointment, is a very minor one in the matter of numbers but concerns a subject about which many of us in the Eastern Counties and in the area behind the Humber feel very strongly. There are many people there who have in the past


formed the source of volunteers for the Royal Navy.
In these days, when we are finding it so hard to secure Regular men to serve in the Royal Navy, to some extent, and in the Army and the Air Force, it is strange that we should be dispensing with one of the great opportunities that we have of attracting the voluntary services of these men. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice has dealt very ably with the question of how these men in this large catchment area are to be used. We cannot afford to be without these very keen volunteers in the Royal Navy. I know many of them and I have every evidence that, to express the matter in very simple words, they are very disappointed indeed at what is happening.
I should like to know how their services are to be used in the future and whether the new proposals will really be a saving of expense. It is so very easy sometimes to wash something out and to maintain that there will be a great saving if we replace it with something else, only to find that the total cost is really greater than it was before we started messing about with it. Therefore, even at this very late hour, I would plead for the retention of the Humber Division. The nearest two other divisions are a very long way apart and a great gap is left on a most dangerous seaboard, where there is no great area from which people can easily be drawn. I felt that it was the duty of those of us who live in that area and know the situation of the people there to express our very great regret that it has been found necessary to take these steps.

9.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): I speak for the first time from the Dispatch Box with considerable trepidation, but I am glad that my baptism of fire comes from two of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), with both of whom I share many seafaring interests. I should like to thank them both for the kind words that they have said about me, which I much appreciate. At the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, I shall also pass on his congratulations to my predecessor and his thanks

to my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who saw a number of Members of Parliament from the area about which we are concerned tonight.
I feel it good from my point of view that this debate comes so soon after my taking up my appointment. Before we make a maiden speech in the House most of us shiver on the brink for some time, but in the case of this maiden speech of mine I am being pushed very quickly into the deep end. I only hope that, not having had much practice lately I have not entirely forgotten how to swim.
It happens, as my hon. Friend said, that I have a little personal experience of the subject which we are discussing. During my service in the R.N.V.R., both before and during the war, I made a number of contacts with those who were serving in the Humber Division. Of course my hon. Friend was right in emphasising the record of that division which during the war was first-class. Yet I think that both my hon. Friends will realise that at least some of the questions they have raised must be looked at in the general context of the new plans for the Naval Reserve which were recently announced by my noble Friend.
The new unified Reserve has been formed primarily for the purpose of greater efficiency. The over-riding consideration has been the need to have a Reserve that is fully trained and immediately available in time of war. Many who served in the last war will remember, perhaps with nostalgia, the training centre at Hove, H.M.S. "King Alfred." But such halcyon training will not be possible in any future war. Officers and men will be required at once to proceed to their mobilisation stations, and from the word "go" they will have to carry out their duties with efficiency. Such efficiency can only come from really quite strenuous training over some time.
Up to now the Naval Reserve has benefited from the experience of officers and men who join it on their release from National Service. As the House knows, soon those joining the Reserve will not have had any National Service background, and so training in future will be wholly on a volunteer basis. Therefore the Admiralty's plans for this general Reserve are based on what up to now has been known as "List I requirements"


of the R.N.V.R. As my hon. Friends know, this involves regular weekend drills and an annual period of sea training. There will be very limited exceptions to these requirements for volunteers who have special skills, for example, postal ratings of whom there are a number at Hull. The change-over to this new Reserve will have to be gradual. Many existing Reserve officers have served in the Fleet and can keep up the standards required with comparatively short periods of refresher training. In these cases the training commitments will be adjusted to suit the individuals concerned.
Apart from changing the training arrangements, we are also bringing the R.N.R. and the R.N.V.R. together into one new Reserve, as my hon. Friend noticed. This will enable us to make the most economical use of all our training facilities. It will also give retired Merchant Navy officers and members of the fishing fleets an opportunity of putting their sea experience to good use in the sea training centres. Above all, it will bring into one organisation all those who volunteer to carry out peace-time training in order to serve with the Navy in time of war. I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, too, that it will be good to make an end of rivalries, most of them completely trivial, which have tended to exist in the past.
With this change the name and the separate entity of the R.N.V.R. will cease to exist. My noble Friend has asked me on this occasion to pay a tribute to the R.N.V.R. This I do with particular pleasure. It has been said that the Volunteer Reserve has always been able to recruit men of the highest quality with a spirit of devoted service to the nation. This is so because it is the desire of many people who live in these islands to be trained in the ways of the sea and to maintain and perhaps even to add to the lustre of the traditions of the Royal Navy. Such opportunities will continue to exist in the new Naval Reserve. The Admiralty is confident that they will be as fully used as they have been in the past.
The House has already been told that this reorganisation will mean a saving of about one-third of the present annual cost of the Reserves, which is £1,800,000. My noble Friend wishes to emphasise

that these decisions were not taken on the grounds of economy alone. The Admiralty's main concern is to ensure that, by making the best possible use of the resources we can afford, we shall have the type of reserves we need. The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle is that the Admiralty, as I know already from having had conversations about it, did not take these decisions at all casually but with the very deepest of regrets.
Let me answer some of the specific points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. He asked about the present List II officers and men of the Humber Division. Before I answer the question in detail let me say that the present List I strength of the division is not sufficient to get full value from a sea training centre. The Admiralty had therefore first to see whether there was any chance of List I strength being increased. Unfortunately it did not appear likely because the area in which the division can recruit on the new basis is relatively small. Added to that, those in the area who suffer from a strong dose of sea fever have, by tradition, in the past joined either the Merchant Navy or the fishing fleets.
Having made that assessment the Admiralty then had to decide whether it was justified in maintaining a sea training centre which was unlikely to be used to the fullest advantage. The cost of maintaining such a centre would have to come from funds allocated to fully manned divisions. So, as I have said, with the greatest regret the Admiralty felt that rather than curtail the activities of other divisions it must close down the Humber Division. Of course, all existing members of the Division, H.M.S. "Galatea", have been invited to join the new Reserve and will of course be made most welcome if they choose to do so.
My hon. Friend pointed out that it was most unlikely that any of them will be able to fulfil the List I requirements owing to their inability to get to an alternative sea training centre. It is recognised that many of the officers of the Humber Division have already been allocated to special mobilisation duties. Although, because of the closing of the sea training centre, it will not be possible for these officers to continue to meet List I training requirements their


mobilisation duties will not be changed, except in special circumstances. Arrangements wall be made for them to carry on their annual training.
There will also be no substantial change in the position of existing List II officers. I would point out that this applies not only to Humber but to all the divisions of the new Reserve. Existing List II officers, who, after all, have valuable training behind them, will be wanted, and the type of training they have enjoyed in the past will in general be continued.
I am afraid it will not be possible in future for new entries to be accepted into List II. As my hon. Friend foresaw, from the point of view of new recruits, List II will be closed down. Of course, that raises the point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle that there will be no opportunity for those in that East Coast area to join any Reserve organisation on a List II basis. As regards ratings, the existing communications training centre at Hull will be retained. It is intended not only to maintain it, but to expand it so that signallers as well as telegraphists, who hitherto have been in the Wireless Reserve, will now be trained at this communications centre. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it will not he just a Wireless Reserve centre, but a much wider training centre and will become the biggest of this type of training centre in the whole country. We hope that many of the List I ratings at Hull will feel inclined to turn over to this branch of the Reserve.
The postal ratings at Hull will still be required and the new arrangements will make practically no difference to them. There are also special arrangements for pre-National Service ratings so that they can perform their National Service, if it is required, in the Royal Navy. Any ratings in the Humber Division who do not join these specialist branches can still join the new Reserve, but they will have no training obligations. Whether they join or not, they will receive the bounty for the current year. I should like to emphasise that List II officers and men are being treated no differently from List II officers and men in any other division.
My hon. Friend asked about the uniform of officers and men on List II. I can tell him that they will be able to keep their uniform and be entitled to

wear it on the same occasions as they are entitled to at present. My hon. Friend asked me to reiterate the promise made by my predecessor that there would be no change in the Royal Marine Forces Reserve. I can do that. My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of sea cadets. Every endeavour will be made to look after the sea cadets in that area and it is still hoped that they may be taken on short trips in Her Majesty's ships visiting the port.
Now I come to the question of the savings. I emphasise again that the main motive in closing the Humber Division is not one of economy. The closing will, in fact, result in a saving of about £50,000 a year. The new communications centre will not occupy more than a small part of the existing building which, as my hon. Friend said, is on lease to the Admiralty, and the lease expires in 1962.
It is intended to try to dispose of the remainder of this lease and to find a smaller and more economical building in the centre of Hull which will be more convenient for those ratings and officers who continue to serve in the communications centre. It is quite possible that the telephone exchange which my hon. Friend mentioned might be taken over by anyone interested in taking the lease of the building. We have it on a ten-year agreement. If it is not taken over by the new occupant of the main building, we hope that we might come to some arrangement with the Hull Corporation.
I hope that I have answered all the questions which have been put, but if there are others I will try to answer them on another occasion. I should particularly like to emphasise that despite the closing of the Humber Division the Navy intends to maintain close contact with the area. One of Her Majesty's ships will certainly visit Hull and Grimsby during this summer and it is hoped that an additional visit will also be arranged.
Finally, the Admiralty is aware that emotions as well as reason enter into this matter. I hope that what I have said will bring some comfort to the minds and hearts of those on whose behalf my hon. Friend has initiated this debate.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I rise to make two comments. First, I wish to associate this side of


the House most warmly and sincerely with the tribute paid by the Parliamentary Secretary to the R.N.V.R. and to say that in this period of change which is taking place we shall watch the position most carefully. I also noted the emphasis that this change is in the best interests of the Navy and is not merely a matter of saving £50,000.
I should like to compliment the hon. Member on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. That is particularly why I rose at this time. He brings to his job a wide personal experience of the matters

of which he is now in charge, and I congratulate him on his appointment. He and I had a very great battle in the by-election of 1950, which was a very close contest on which I look back with some pleasure. I think even the hon. Member will recall that battle very keenly. I welcome him to his new appointment and look forward to his next speech at the Dispatch Box.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.